Supreme Court rules for South Carolina over bid to defund Planned Parenthood
The court held in a 6-3 ruling on ideological lines with the conservative justices in the majority that the federal law in question does not allow people who are enrolled in the Medicaid program to file such claims.
The ruling authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is a boost to the state's effort to prevented Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through Medicaid, a federal program for low-income people that is administered by the states, because it prevents individual patients to enforce their right to choose their preferred health care provider.
Federal funding for abortion is already banned, but conservatives have long targeted Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services including abortions where allowed, for any funding it receives even it is for other health care-related services.
They argue that even non-abortion related funding that flows to Planned Parenthood would help it carry out its broader agenda that favors abortion rights.
The state's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood came before the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling in 2022.
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 abortion care in compliance with the new law, as well as other health care services, including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.
In 2018, Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that prohibited 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, joined a lawsuit filed by the group, 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Appeals court panel clears way for Trump admin to end TPS for Hondurans, Nepalis and Nicaraguans
'The thing we had in the Supreme Court had nothing to do with these at all,' Arulanantham told the judges. Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, decried the 9th Circuit ruling Wednesday, particularly the judges' lack of explanation for their conclusion. 'The court's failure to provide any reasoning for its decision, including why this was an 'emergency,' falls far short of what due process requires, and our clients deserve,' Arulanantham said. 'The decision simply sanctions the government's power grab, exposing tens of thousands of people to illegal detention and deportation. They deserve better than what this court has done today.' Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. TPS status for Nepalis was set to expire Aug. 5, so they could be required to leave the country immediately. Protections for Hondurans and Nicaraguans are now set to end Sept. 8, barring further court action. However, not all of the roughly 63,000 immigrants covered by the ruling Wednesday face the prospect of immediate deportation. Some have pending claims for asylum or withholding of deportation, which could allow them to remain in the U.S. In its emergency stay request, the Trump administration asked the panel to halt further action in the lawsuit pending in the district court and said the government planned to make a rare request to remove Thompson from the matter, citing her use of 'extreme rhetoric with no bearing on this case.' The 9th Circuit panel declined to put a hold on the proceedings before Thompson, saying such a move wasn't justified simply because DOJ might move to disqualify her in the future.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Vaccine-Preventable Disease: Could the Sky Fall?
It's been a tempestuous 2025 for the nation's healthcare infrastructure. I think the worst is yet to come, given cutbacks to Medicaid eligibility and coverage and the devolving recommendations by government healthcare agencies. Concern is also arising that third-party payers (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance) and Vaccines for Children may not cover some scientifically proven vaccines or some parts of scientifically based schedules. Vaccination rates and public trust in vaccines had been dropping since the pandemic, and only 69% of families trusted CDC vaccine recommendations in January 2025, even before recent shakeups in CDC committees. Declining postpandemic national vaccine rates now hover just above thresholds for losing herd immunity (Figure 1) also in part because of increasing vaccine exemptions (Figure 2). However, some local rates have dipped below thresholds in what I call 'vaccine deserts,' those geographic pockets where vaccine deniers comprise larger parts of the population — the measles outbreak being the poster child for this. In addition, discussions are emerging about limiting or removing school vaccine requirements or expanding exemptions. Other factors that imperil herd immunity have always reduced vaccine uptake, even in families that want to vaccinate their children: time and resource limitations for working parents, language barriers, limited or no medical care coverage, limited transportation, rural or inner-city residence, and uncovered vaccines. Some may say, 'So what?' We still have more than 90% uptake for most vaccines. Evidence suggests that even with relatively high uptake, vaccine-preventable disease still occurs in subpopulations, including vulnerable children. For example, a Boston group recently reported that, even before the drop in vaccination rates over the past 5 years, vulnerable children were more likely have more invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). So, cracks in the proverbial dam existed in populations (those with comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status) even pre-pandemic and before current cutbacks. Massachusetts IPD data (ie, Optum Clinformatics DataMart and Merative MarketScan Medicaid Multi-State Database) from a time of Medicaid expansion (January 2015 through December 2019) were analyzed by insurance type and comorbidities. As expected, children younger than 2 years and particularly those younger than 1 year had the highest IPD rates regardless of insurance status, but children with Medicaid had higher IPD rates than commercially insured children. Of concern, these differences occurred despite statewide pneumococcal conjugate vaccine vaccination rates reported previously as being fairly high (92% with three or more doses by 2 years of age). Relative IPD rates for children with Medicaid vs those with commercial insurance were higher in infants (1.3, 95% CI, 0.9-1.9) and adolescents (3.4, 95% CI, 1.5-7.1). Among children with comorbidities, the IPD rate was about four times higher in infants and 10 times higher in 6- to 10-year-olds, regardless of insurance type. The authors cite three prior studies showing lower vaccine uptake in Medicaid recipients, suggesting that, among factors affecting Medicaid patients' IPD burden, lower vaccine uptake likely has a role. It seems logical that these prepandemic, pre-cutback data foreshadow darker times ahead due to a combination of increasing postpandemic public distrust, vaccine fatigue, and cutback-era policies. Not only is vaccine confidence still dropping and Medicaid becoming more restrictive at the federal level, but states may change Medicaid coverage when more costs are reassigned to them. The bottom line is that vaccine availability and access will likely decrease, even in non-economically vulnerable children. So, all children could be exposed to increased types of circulating infectious disease — resulting in increased IPD, particularly in vulnerable children. And here we are only considering one among many vaccine-preventable diseases. As pediatric providers, can we close the anticipated vaccine gaps as vulnerable families deal with healthcare cutbacks and likely become more economically vulnerable? One way is to rededicate ourselves to getting as many children as possible vaccinated (eg, reminder texts, emails, phone calls before vaccine due dates) according to schedules recommended by organizations that are politically independent and science-driven, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It's not a time for 'business as usual.' We need to proactively confirm our belief in scientifically based vaccine schedules to the families of our patients. While I strongly believe in patient medical homes, there may be room for flexibility if vaccines become available from alternative sources that are economically helpful to families. We can hope charitable organizations, foundations, and some altruistic individuals will ramp up funding to fill the evolving voids. The answers are not simple nor are potential fixes easy. Yet, pediatric providers have always answered the call when children are in jeopardy. Let's keep as many children safe as possible.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US attorney will no longer bring felony charges against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in DC
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors in the nation's capital will no longer bring felony charges against people for possessing rifles or shotguns in the District of Columbia, according to a new policy adopted by the leader of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. That office will continue to pursue charges when someone is accused of using a shotgun or rifle in a violent crime or has a criminal record that makes it illegal to have a firearm. Local authorities in Washington can prosecute people for illegally possessing unregistered rifles and shotguns. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement that the change is based on guidance from the Justice Department and the Office of Solicitor General and conforms with two Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Pirro, a former Fox News host, has been a vocal critic of local officials' crime-fighting efforts since Republican President Donald Trump installed her in office in May. Her policy shift means federal prosecutors will not purse charges under the D.C. law that made it illegal to carry rifles or shotguns, except in limited cases involving permit holders. The change also overlaps with Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in the city, flooding the streets of Washington with patrols of hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members. The White House says 76 firearms have been seized since the crackdown started this month. The new policy also coves large-capacity magazines, but it does not apply to handguns. 'We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them,' Pirro said, adding that she and Trump "are committed to prosecuting gun crime.' Pirro said a blanket ban on possessing shotguns and rifles violates the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York gun law and held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. She also pointed to the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller striking down the city's ban on handguns in the home.
