The push to defund Planned Parenthood hit other clinics in Maine. Now their group is suing
Maine Family Planning filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration Wednesday seeking to restore the reimbursements.
Accessing health care in Maine — one of the Northeast's poorest states and its most rural — is a challenge in areas far from population centers such as Portland and Bangor.
Vanessa Shields-Haas, a nurse practitioner, said the organization's clinics have been seeing all patients as usual and completing Medicaid paperwork for visits — but not submitting it because it appears the provision took effect as soon as the law was signed.
'Knowing how hard it is to access care in this state, not allowing these community members to access their care, it's cruel," Shields-Haas said.
Maine clinics appear to be only others included in cuts
Republican lawmakers targeted Planned Parenthood in one piece of what President Donald Trump dubbed the 'big beautiful' bill that Congress passed and the president signed earlier this month.
While advocates focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead, it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.
The U.S. Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. The not-for-profit Maine organization asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only affected entity.
It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say that its funding is at risk, too.
Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions. Instead, the money in question involves other health services, such as cancer screenings and tests, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
Proponents of that wrinkle in the law say abortion providers use Medicaid money for other services to subsidize abortion.
'This has never been just about Planned Parenthood," Autumn Christensen, vice president of public policy for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement. "It's about any Big Abortion business or network that performs abortions. Taxpayers should never be forced to prop up an industry that profits from ending human lives.'
Maine Family Planning goes beyond abortion
Maine Family Planning operates 18 clinics across the state.
In 2024, it had about 7,200 family planning patients, including 645 who obtained abortions. Services include pregnancy testing, contraception, family planning counseling, breast exams, cancer screenings and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.
Some of the sites also offer primary care services, where there are another 600 or so patients. There are about 800 gender-affirming care patients and about 200 who use its upstart mobile clinic, said George Hill, the president and CEO of the organization.
Hill said that for about two-thirds of its patients, Maine Family Planning is the only place they get medical care in a typical year.
About half of the patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid, and the clinics have been receiving about $1.9 million a year in reimbursements, which accounts for about one-fourth of the organization's budget.
'It's a difficult state to provide care in and now we're facing this,' Hill said. In its lawsuit, the group says it has enough reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursement only through October.
Finding health care can be a struggle in this rural state
Maine Family Planning says that if it had to turn away patients, it would be more complicated for them than simply finding another provider. There aren't enough in rural areas, the group notes — and many don't accept Medicaid.
One patient, Ashley Smith, said she started going to Maine Family Planning about five years ago when she could not find other health care she could afford. While she's not enrolled in Medicaid, she fears clinics could be shuttered because of cuts.
'I am so worried that if my clinic closes, I don't know what I'll do or if I'll be able to see another provider,' Smith said.
Maine Family Planning also supports care at more than 40 other health care facilities. Other than the Planned Parenthood locations that receive money from Maine Family Planning, those other providers don't stand to lose their Medicaid reimbursements.
But, Hill said, the loss of Medicaid funding for Maine Family Planning would mean the group would have less to send to partners.
The Maine clinics say the law violates their right to equal protection
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Maine Family Planning in the challenge, says in its legal filing that the defunding denies it equal protection under the law because it would have funding cut off, but organizations that provide similar services would not.
'The administration would rather topple a statewide safety network than let a patient get a cancer screening at a facility that also offers abortion care,' Meetra Mehdizadeh, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said in an interview.
Planned Parenthood already sued and won a reprieve from a judge, preventing its Medicaid payments cutoff — at least until July 21 — while a court considers that case.
Planned Parenthood has warned that the law could put 200 of its affiliates' roughly 600 clinics across the U.S. at risk of closing.
Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is gerrymandering? How a centuries-old political tactic sparked a redistricting firestorm in Texas.
Republicans are threatening to remove Democrats from office or even have them arrested. Democrats have declared 'we are at war' and pledged to go 'nuclear' in response. All of this over maps. How can something so seemingly basic spark such intense rhetoric? That's because, thanks to a process known as gerrymandering, political fights over maps can become high-stakes contests over power, how it's wielded and how far the parties are willing to go to protect it. The current standoff over gerrymandering centers around Texas, where the state's Republican majority is hoping to approve new maps that redraw the congressional districts to secure their party up to five additional seats in Congress if the maps are in place by next year's midterm elections. Dozens of Democratic legislators have fled the state to prevent the legislature from considering the maps. So far the tactic has worked, but it's unclear how long they can hold out or what authority Republicans have to overcome their holdout. What is gerrymandering? Every 10 years, the Census determines how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the states. That decision is made at the federal level, but it's the states themselves that choose how to carve up their territory into their allotted number of districts. In most cases, district maps are approved by the state legislature, which creates an obvious incentive for the party in power to manipulate the maps to their advantage. That's what gerrymandering is: the process of drawing maps in a way that concentrates one party's power while diluting the power of the opposition. Gerrymandering is nothing new. In fact, it has been around longer than either of today's major political parties. The term was coined all the way back in 1812 after Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved congressional maps that included a winding district that critics said looked like a mythical salamander. Gerry plus salamander became gerrymander, even though Gerry himself found the map to be 'highly disagreeable.' Click the arrows to cycle through different gerrymandering scenarios to see how it works in practice. How does gerrymandering work? Voters for the two parties aren't spread out evenly across the states. They tend to cluster together with others who hold similar political views. Democratic voters are concentrated in big cities, while Republicans usually dominate rural areas. This creates the opportunity for lawmakers to draw lines that tactically distribute their voter base across districts so they can win as many seats as possible. There are two primary techniques that are used in gerrymandering: cracking and packing. Cracking splits a dense area of one party's voters into small pieces that are spread out across several districts where they are outnumbered by their political opposition. In Utah, for example, the lines are drawn so the state's lone Democratic stronghold of Salt Lake City is cracked into four pieces that are each part of larger, mostly rural districts. The other gerrymandering strategy is called packing, which is when maps cram as many of one party's voters as possible into a small number of districts so seats elsewhere in the state are safe. Is gerrymandering legal? Yes, but with some important caveats. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution barring legislators from designing their state's districts to give themselves a partisan advantage. Gerrymanders based on race — maps designed to weaken the voting power of a specific minority group — are unconstitutional, however. The distinction between the two types of gerrymandering can be fuzzy because minorities, particularly Black voters, tend to vote for Democrats. In those cases, the court has found that a gerrymander can still be constitutional as long as it was created with a clear intent to dilute minority votes. Other than the rules against racial gerrymandering, which could change as soon as the next Supreme Court term, the only other nationwide mandate for congressional map drawing is that districts must have roughly the same population. Many states also set additional guidelines for their maps, including the principle that districts should be as geographically compact as possible and that all parts of a district have to be connected. How did gerrymandering become such a big deal? There have been complaints about gerrymandering for centuries, but nothing in the past compares with the intensity of the fight over district lines over the past decade and a half. Things began to escalate after the 2010 Census, when Republicans across the country mounted a coordinated effort to use redistricting to increase GOP control over both state and federal legislatures. The campaign utilized sophisticated mapping technology that had not been available during previous redistricting cycles. The new maps were credited with helping Republicans maintain a strong majority in the House of Representatives in 2012 despite receiving 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats in House races nationwide. Republicans kept control of the House during the next two election cycles, in part because of partisan maps that helped them secure more than a dozen seats than they would have otherwise won, according to analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. Though Democrats were largely caught off guard in 2012, blue states passed their own gerrymanders following the 2020 Census. As a result, the GOP's districting advantage had been largely erased by the 2022 midterms, according to the Associated Press. Even in the context of recent gerrymandering, Analysts say the scope and timing of Texas Republicans' redistricting effort stands out. States usually redraw their districts every 10 years, after the new census determines where House districts will be apportioned. The Texas GOP has opted to create new maps just five years after the state's last round of redistricting, with the goal of having them in place ahead of the midterms. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas's 38 congressional districts. The new map would put them in position to hold 30 House seats after next year, which would give them 80% of the state's representation in Congress in a state where President Trump secured 56% of the vote in last year's presidential race, according to the official tally from the Texas Secretary of State. That plan is on hold, however, until the standoff with Democrats who have fled the state is resolved. Democratic governors in California, New York and Illinois have pledged to gerrymander their own states if the new Texas map does go into effect, but experts say they would face serious hurdles if they do try to go tit-for-tat with the GOP on redistricting. The outcome of the current redistricting fight could have a huge impact on President Trump's final two years in the White House. Democrats need to flip only a handful of seats to gain a majority in the House, which would give them veto power over any legislation Trump wanted to pass and the authority to launch high-profile investigations into his actions in office. If Republicans keep control, Trump would enjoy two more years of a Congress that is steadfastly aligned behind his vision for the country.
NBC News
15 minutes ago
- NBC News
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin urges fellow Democrats to 'go nuclear' in redistricting fight
BENTON HARBOR, Mich. — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a rising Democratic star from Michigan, told NBC News that Democrats should 'go nuclear' to counter Republicans' push in Texas and other red states to redraw the congressional maps in their favor. The first-term senator, who was tapped to deliver the Democratic rebuttal to President Donald Trump's joint address to Congress this year, said Democrats have to fight fire with fire. 'I'm going to urge and encourage blue states like a California or Chicago or Illinois to do the same thing. I don't want to do that. I want the country to have a completely nonpartisan drawing of the lines based on the census. But if they're going to do that and go nuclear, so am I,' she said in an exclusive interview after her first and only town hall of the congressional August recess on Monday night. Slotkin argued that Democrats should go on the 'offensive' against Trump and congressional Republicans' agenda more broadly. If Republicans want her vote on a spending bill to avert a government shutdown at the end of September, for example, Slotkin said they will need to roll back health care cuts signed into law as part of Trump's megabill last month. 'If my vote is wanted, right, then we got to negotiate. And then the thing I'm going to negotiate for is returning some of that health care to the people I represent,' she told NBC News, noting that she voted against a Republican spending bill in March as well. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer of New York, faced intense backlash from the base after he allowed a key procedural vote on that bill to move forward. Slotkin said Democrats are ready for a new generation of leadership, noting that at 49 years old, she's 'like a spring chicken in the Senate.' She referred to older leaders, at one point, as 'warmed over leftovers' and said younger voters relate to members who get 'technology and the changing economy' and don't 'use a flip phone.' Slotkin brought up the issue during the town hall as well. 'Let's be honest, even here tonight, right? It is a very hard thing to bring our young people into the conversation, because they're disillusioned, they feel left out, they feel like these people don't represent me,' she told the crowd, which was overwhelmingly composed of White seniors and older voters, although it was held at a Boys and Girls Club in predominantly-Black Benton Harbor. The club, which is located in Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga's district, has lobbied her to protect its federal funding, Slotkin said. One Democrat who appears to have a grasp on the demographic the rest of the party seems to be struggling with, Slotkin said, is Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City. Slotkin said she disagrees with Mamdani on many issues, but that his upset victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo was 'like a blinking red light.' 'It's hard to miss the message of that election, which I think was very similar, frankly, to the election we had in November. Cost of living is still the biggest issue for people that I talk to,' she said. 'It's not maybe the internet's biggest issue, Twitter's biggest issue. It is the issue that 80% of my constituents will talk to me about in the street.' Slotkin said it's not about progressive versus moderate. Like Mamdani, Trump defeated Kamala Harris in 2024 after making lowering costs central to his campaign. 'He was going to put more money into your pocket and his yard signs, his digital ads, his TV ads, they were all centered around that,' she said. 'For Democrats, it was hard to know exactly what our priorities were.' 'We had a lot of issues we cared deeply about, but sometimes, when you care about everything, no one knows what your priorities are,' she continued. 'So my strong belief is that our priority has to be the economy.' The Democratic Party is divided on a central question right now, Slotkin said: 'Is Donald Trump an existential threat to democracy in his second term, or is Donald Trump's second term bad, but, like his first term, survivable if we just wait it out? And I just want you to know, from your senator, as someone who sits in that room on your behalf, I am in camp number one, he is an existential threat to democracy.' Asked about Gaza, Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who is pro-Israel, said she would have voted in favor of blocking certain offensive weapons sales to Israel last week. She missed the votes, brought by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., which failed but attracted the support of more than half of Senate Democrats. 'It's a very dangerous thing if we have support for our relationships abroad be completely partisan,' Slotkin said, adding that she 'was glad' that Trump sent his Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff to Gaza. 'I think that's an important step to, like, see what's on the ground and just bring this thing, all hostages out, end the humanitarian blockade. Like, get it done.'
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump says Vance is "most likely" his heir apparent
President Trump said Tuesday he sees Vice President JD Vance as an early favorite to serve as his successor. A reporter asked Mr. Trump whether he sees Vance as the "heir apparent to MAGA." The president responded that Vance is "most likely" the leading contender. "It's too early, obviously, to talk about it. But certainly he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point," the president said during an unrelated executive order-signing ceremony. Mr. Trump also mentioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and suggested he's "somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form." And he said the Republican Party has some other "incredible people." The president has singled out Rubio and Vance in the past, but has mostly avoided choosing a favorite. He praised both men in a May interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" and said he didn't "want to get involved" in picking a leader, though he noted that the vice president would typically "have an advantage." Vance and Rubio are both seen as possible contenders for the 2028 GOP presidential nomination. The two were once vehement Trump critics — with Rubio running against Mr. Trump in the 2016 GOP primaries — but they have repositioned themselves as allies and defenders of the president since then. At least publicly, both men have been coy about their political ambitions. Late last month, Rubio downplayed the possibility of a presidential run in an interview on Fox News' "My View with Lara Trump," which is hosted by the president's daughter-in-law. Rubio said he thinks Vance "would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that," adding that he'd be satisfied if secretary of state ended up being "the apex of my career." Meanwhile, Vance told Fox News' "Fox and Friends" in April he isn't focused on 2028, adding: "When we get to that point, I'll talk to the president. We'll figure out what we want to do." Mr. Trump has also repeatedly toyed with the possibility of running for a third term — even though the Constitution forbids presidents from serving for more than two terms. Earlier Tuesday, he told CNBC's "Squawk Box" he "probably" won't run for another term.
