What will the Supreme Court's Planned Parenthood ruling mean in Minnesota?
Legal experts say the ruling means that states will have the right to block Planned Parenthood's access to federal Medicaid funding for non-abortion services. That includes birth control, cancer screenings, reproductive care and more.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was suing South Carolina for blocking the funding, but the high court ruled in the state's favor in a 6-3 vote.
WCCO reached out to Planned Parenthood North Central States, which covers Minnesota, to see if there's concern that Medicaid patients here might face the same restrictions. They said that, as of Thursday, nothing will change in Minnesota for the 22,000 patients who sought care using Medicaid.
"We want our patients to know that they will be able to continue to get care here in Minnesota under Medicaid, and we are doing everything that we can to live up to our committment to provide care and adapt in this every shifting environment," Ruth Richardson, president of Planned Parenthood North Central, said. "There's a lot of uncertainty in this moment, that is for sure with this manufactured chaos that we continue to see, and it seems to be ever-increasing in many ways. But the commitment and one thing we can rely on at this point is that we are continuing to see patients and we're going to be unwavering within that commitment."
Last month, Planned Parenthood announced that four clinics would close in Minnesota, including two in the Twin Cities, due to a freeze in federal funding and budget cuts proposed in Congress. It's unclear if this new U.S. Supreme Court decision could impact more clinics.
The dispute before the high court did not involve abortion, but it comes as several Republican-led states push to block Planned Parenthood from receiving any Medicaid funds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
KROMATID Announces Successful Close of $8 Million Series C Funding Round, Exceeding Growth Capital Goals
Funding positions KROMATID for accelerated growth in genomic analysis and gene editing technologies BOULDER, Colo., Aug. 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- KROMATID, a leader in next-generation genomic structural analysis, today announced the successful close of its Series C funding round, raising a total of $8 million and surpassing its targeted capital goals. The most recent tranche of the round contributed $3.8 million. The round was led by BroadOak Capital Partners, with participation from both existing and new strategic investors. The capital from this Series C close will fuel expansion of KROMATID's proprietary platforms for detecting chromosomal structural rearrangements, scale operations to meet growing global demand, and advance strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical and academic leaders in cell and gene therapy. "We are thrilled to have achieved our funding goal, which is a testament to the confidence our investors have in our vision and the unique capabilities of our technology," said Jim Chomas, CEO of KROMATID. "This investment enables us to scale faster, innovate further, and continue delivering the genomic insights that help bring life-changing therapies to patients." "KROMATID has built a differentiated platform that provides accurate, high-resolution analysis of genomic integrity, one of the most pressing needs in the rapidly expanding gene and cell therapy industry," said Bill Snider, Partner at BroadOak Capital Partners. "We are proud to continue our partnership as they enter their next phase of growth." Over the next 12–18 months, KROMATID plans to deploy this funding to accelerate commercial expansion and enhance automation and throughput in its laboratory operations. The company will also invest in strategic hiring across scientific, operational, and customer-facing teams to meet increasing market demand and solidify its leadership position in genomic structural analysis. About KROMATIDKROMATID delivers next-generation genomic structural analysis solutions for gene and cell therapy developers, enabling precise detection of chromosomal structural rearrangements with unmatched clarity and resolution. By combining proprietary imaging and bioinformatics capabilities, KROMATID supports therapeutic innovation from discovery through regulatory approval. About BroadOak Capital PartnersBroadOak Capital Partners is a boutique financial institution that provides direct investment and investment banking services to companies in the life science tools, diagnostics, and biopharma services sectors. BroadOak has invested in more than 70 life sciences companies including over 35 exits. For more information, visit Media Contact:Amanda LadasGlobal Marketing ManagerKROMATIDaladas@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE KROMATID Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pediatricians' association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance
For 30 years, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aligned closely with those from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP. But on Aug. 19, 2025, the AAP published new vaccine recommendations that diverge from those of the CDC. The pediatrician association's move comes on the heels of unprecedented changes made earlier this year by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, in how the government approves and issues guidance on vaccines. The biggest difference is in the AAP's guidance around COVID-19 vaccines for children. This new guidance comes as COVID-19 cases are once again rising across the U.S. and many parents and providers are confused by unclear guidance from federal health authorities about whether children should be vaccinated. In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine physician and vaccine delivery researcher from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, explains the new guidance and what it means for parents. Higgins is also a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics. What are the AAP's new vaccine recommendations? The AAP recommends that all children 6 to 23 months old receive a complete COVID-19 vaccine series, consistent with recommendations for this age group in previous years. For children and adolescents ages 2 to 18, the AAP now advises a single dose if they are at higher risk, a change from previous years, when vaccination was recommended for all in this age group. Children at higher risk include those who have certain chronic medical conditions, who live in long-term care or group settings, who have never been vaccinated, or who live with family members at high risk. The AAP also recommends that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for any child or adolescent whose parent wants them to be protected, regardless of risk status. In all cases, the most updated version of the vaccine should be used. How do these recommendations differ from CDC guidance? The difference is substantial. The CDC currently advises what it calls 'shared clinical decision-making' for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised. This means the decision is left up to individual discussions between families and their health care providers, but the vaccine is not treated as a routine recommendation. These current guidelines were made after Kennedy bypassed the agency's normal independent review process. That framework can be confusing for families and difficult for providers to implement. By contrast, the AAP recommendations identify the ages and conditions where the risk is highest while also supporting vaccine availability for any families who want it. Why are they diverging? The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed. Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee's panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread. In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness. Will parents be able to follow these recommendations? This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage. By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket. Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna's vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer's authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children. Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP's schedule unless rules are updated. What happens next? Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available. Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: David Higgins, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Read more: COVID-19 vaccines for kids are mired in uncertainty amid conflicting federal guidance RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance RFK Jr's shakeup of vaccine advisory committee raises worries about scientific integrity of health recommendations David Higgins volunteers as Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a board member of Immunize Colorado. He was not involved in the development or publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics' immunization guidelines. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely his own and do not represent those of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Solve the daily Crossword
Medscape
15 minutes ago
- Medscape
Nodal Clues Shift NSCLC Treatment Path
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hi. My name is Dr Coral Olazagasti. I am a medical oncologist from the University of Miami, and today I want to walk you through one of the cases that I had. I had this 40-year-old patient. He is a Hispanic man, with a 30 pack-year history of smoking, who initially presented to his pulmonary clinic with complaints of shortness of breath and a cough that just didn't go away. The pulmonary doctor sent him for a CT scan of the chest, and that revealed a 5-cm right middle lobe mass. The patient was sent to interventional radiology for biopsy, and unfortunately, that biopsy revealed non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma. The pulmonary doctor then sent him for a PET scan for clinical staging. The PET scan revealed the mass in the right middle lobe, which we are already aware of, but also an ipsilateral FDG-avid hilar lymph node. According to this PET scan imaging, how would you stage this patient? The primary mass was 5 cm, so T2, and the PET scan revealed only one hilar, FDG-avid lymph node, so technically T2N1 disease. This patient has a clinical staging of stage IIB disease. How would you proceed now? Would you proceed with surgery? Would you send this patient to interventional pulmonology for mediastinal and hilar pathologic staging, or would you give this patient systemic therapy? I know what I would do. I would send this patient to interventional pulmonology because we want to make sure that we have the right pathologic staging. Not only that, not only do we get to sample the mediastinum and the hilum, but we also get to have enough tissue to send for molecular testing, which is very important, if not one of the most important steps in this discussion today. The patient went for pathologic staging, and in this case, he turns out to have not only the positive ipsilateral hilar lymph node but also an ipsilateral positive mediastinal lymph node. At this point, what do you think the staging for this patient is? Unfortunately, the patient now has T2N2 disease, so he was upstaged to stage IIIA. Why is this important? As we see, even though the PET scan is great imaging to have an idea of what the baseline clinical staging is, it is always important to get pathologic staging if we are considering surgical resection, because if the patient turns out to have N3 disease, then they're not considered a surgical candidate. It is important to have all the information necessary in order to proceed with appropriate treatment. The other thing that we need to know, and we need to wait for, prior to starting the discussion for this patient is molecular this case, the patient did not have any targetable mutations. What would you do next? Would you proceed with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy? Would you take this patient straight to surgery? Would you take this patient and present them at the tumor board? I think either option is my case, we always want to bring these cases into a multidisciplinary approach, and so we present them at our multidisciplinary clinic and also tumor board. After discussing the case with the surgeons, the radiologists, and all of our colleagues, we decided that because this patient has a tumor that is greater than 4 cm, and because he has N2 disease, our treatment approach will be induction chemoimmunotherapy for three or four cycles, followed by repeat of the scans, followed by surgery, and then potentially followed by adjuvant immunotherapy. Thank you. I hope you enjoyed this case.
