
Republican spending bill could deal a huge blow to abortion access in California
The legislation, now awaiting a final vote in the House, would eliminate federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions.
An earlier version of the bill would have cut the funds off for 10 years, but lawmakers supporting the measure limited it to the 2025-26 fiscal year before the latest vote. Even so, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, says it may have to close about one-third of its 600 U.S. clinics if it lost all $700 million of the federal funds it receives annually from Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program.
Planned Parenthood says its 115 clinics in California serve about one-third of its patients nationwide — nearly 1 million per year, about 80% of whom are low-income patients on Medi-Cal. Clinics that remain open, for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, might have to limit their services without increased funding from private donors or from state and local governments.
That means cancers would go undetected, sexually transmitted infections would be untreated and birth control would be less available. 'The public health infrastructure of California's most vulnerable communities will break down,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Shelby McMichael, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said Wednesday that the organization 'worked with the state to ensure that these reproductive health services were in the state budget' for 2025-26, which includes funding for the clinics.
But McMichael told the Chronicle that the federal legislation was 'effectively a back-door abortion ban, even in a state like California where voters have affirmed that it's a constitutional right.' She was referring to a ballot measure approved by two-thirds of the state's voters in November 2022, five months after the Supreme Court repealed the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that it had declared in 1973.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the congressional action was 'a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death.'
Congress cut off federal abortion funding for low-income women in the Medicaid program with the Hyde Amendment in 1977. A 1981 California Supreme Court decision has enabled the state to replace the federal dollars with its own funds for Medi-Cal abortions.
California's laws would not be changed by the cutoff of federal funding to abortion providers. But by forcing shutdowns of abortion clinics and reductions in services from those that remain open, the congressional legislation would make it harder for many Californians to find abortion providers.
'Medi-Cal patients will have less places to turn for care, for any type of reproductive health care services, including abortion,' said Melissa Goodman, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. 'The federal effort to defund those who provide abortion services is a key tactic for restricting abortion access in states that protect abortion by radically shrinking the pool of abortion providers who can afford to continue operating.'
Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and author of several books on reproductive law, said some health care providers in California may have to stop providing abortions because of the loss of funding. Or, she said, they 'may have to scale back other services, their wait times may get longer or they may close.'
In a separate action in March, the Trump administration ordered withdrawal of federal funding to California and other states for Title X, which pays for family planning programs for low-income residents and those who lack insurance. Those programs would have had to close without state funding, which was provided in the newly enacted 2025-26 budget.
But on Wednesday, Essential Access Health, a nonprofit that administers Title X grants in California, said it had been notified by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services that the state would receive $12.2 million in Title X funding this year, about $1 million less than last year's family-planning funds. McMichael, of Planned Parenthood, said the state budget also includes funding to make up for the federal reduction.
'We recognize that this may be only a temporary reprieve,' as the administration could change course again in the coming months, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Access Health.
She said advocates of the funding have sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C. over nationwide reductions in Title X funding. Federal courts blocked a similar action by Trump's first administration in 2019.
The congressional budget vote comes in the wake of the latest legal victory for abortion opponents, a Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to eliminate all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood or any other health care provider that also performs abortions. The state had banned the funding in 2018, saying funds provided for other services could be diverted by the providers to pay for abortions.
A federal appeals court said the cutoff violated a 1965 federal law that requires states to allow Medicaid patients to receive services at any qualified institution. But in a 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood on June 26, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law could be enforced only by the federal government, not by private parties like Planned Parenthood or the patient who joined the suit.
Although the ruling applied only to states with laws against abortion funding, it could also affect states like California, which has provided abortions and other reproductive care for women who have been denied treatment in their home state.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
House OKs megabill, includes green tax credit cuts
The Big Story The House approved the Senate's version of the Republican policy bill, sending major cuts to climate-friendly tax credits to Trump's desk. © Greg Nash The legislation passed the House 218-214, with Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), voting with Democrats against the measure. The overwhelming Republican support was a reflection of both the enormous appetite within the GOP for extending the 2017 tax cuts and a demonstration of Trump's immense grip on his party, where loyalty to the president is presumed and defectors risk a career-ending political backlash. A major piece of the bill is its cuts to tax credits for renewable energy and electric vehicles. The EV credit disappears after Sept. 30. Meanwhile, renewables either have to start construction in the next year or produce electricity by 2028 to have access to the credit. The latter cuts have been a major point of contention in deliberations thus far, with moderates saying it goes too far and conservatives saying it didn't go far enough. Ultimately, the vast majority of swing district Republicans and Freedom Caucusers alike voted for the legislation. Read more here, from The Hill's Mike Lillis, Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks. Programming note: There will be no newsletter tomorrow for the 4th of July! We'll be back on Monday. Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains. Programming note: This newsletter will not publish tomorrow for the July 4 holiday. See you Monday! Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future: EPA places staffers who signed 'dissent' letter on leave The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing staffers who signed a letter of dissent against the Trump administration's actions and policies on leave. GOP megabill extends and expands compensation for nuclear weapons radiation victims The Republican megabill passed by Congress on Thursday contains an extension and expansion of a program to compensate Americans who developed cancer from radiation exposure linked to the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Inside Trump's push to pass the 'big, beautiful bill' With the signature policy bill of President Trump's second term hanging in the balance this week, the president and his allies got to work, using a mixture of vinegar and honey to win over skeptics and ensure its final passage. What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics: 'Even if we stop drinking we will be exposed': Parts of France have banned tap water. Is it a warning for the rest of Europe? (The Guardian) On Our Radar Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: Wednesday Thursday What Others are Reading Two key stories on The Hill right now: House sends GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' to Trump's desk in major win for Republicans The 'big, beautiful bill' is heading to President Trump's desk. Read more How your taxes will change after Trump signs the 'big, beautiful bill' into law With the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' headed to President Trump's desk for signature Friday, wealthy Americans are poised to receive significant tax breaks partly offset by steep cuts to social welfare programs. Read more You're all caught up. See you Monday! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a "win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people" and said the men would "be in South Sudan" by Friday. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to be given a chance to tell officials that they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The justices on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that their June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. "The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs. "Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan," Realmuto said. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from Thursday's decision. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the decision on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The judge's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. 'CLEAR REBUKE' Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. "Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration. This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach," White House David Warrington said on Thursday. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." The Justice Department said in a filing that the United States has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the migrants at issue will not be subject to torture. The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.


Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politico
This Pennsylvania Republican withstood pressure on the megabill. Here's why.
It was a shocking move even for Fitzpatrick. First elected in 2016, he has cultivated a brand as a moderate Republican who supported former President Joe Biden's infrastructure package, won the endorsement of a major gun-control group , and regularly visited mosques in his district. He has at times even downplayed his affiliation with the Republican Party, calling himself 'a fiercely independent voice.' His X header reads, 'Defend Democracy. Vote Bipartisan.' Still, many Republicans were shocked Wednesday night when he broke with the party on a procedural vote to move the legislation to a final vote, particularly because he had backed the earlier version of it weeks prior. They said he had not explained his opposition to them, even as other initially resistant Republicans went public with their concerns. 'I was surprised,' Rep. Glenn 'GT' Thompson (R-Pa.) said. 'And I do not know what his objection was.' Some speculated his stance might be related to a letter he wrote to Trump this week opposing the administration's halt of some weapons to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Fitzpatrick's curveball briefly set off a scramble to find him, with the congressman reportedly bolting from the chamber and House Speaker Mike Johnson appearing to tell Fox News he was looking for him . Even some of Fitzpatrick's fellow members of Pennsylvania's congressional delegation were taken aback by his decision. 'You'll have to ask him,' Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), who is eyeing a gubernatorial run, said in response to a question about the vote.