Planned Parenthood shutting down 4 Michigan clinics after Trump administration cuts funding
Planned Parenthood clinic in Marquette, the only abortion care clinic in the U.P., on Dec. 9, 2021 | Allison R. Donahue
Planned Parenthood of Michigan announced Wednesday that it will be closing its health centers in Jackson, Petoskey and Marquette at the end of the month and consolidating the two health centers in Ann Arbor into one location after the Trump administration cut millions of dollars in federal funding for family planning.
In order to ensure long-term sustainability amid funding cuts and expected future restrictions on reproductive health care enacted by President Donald Trump's administration, Planned Parenthood of Michigan, or PPMI said in a news release that it is eliminating some clinics and cutting its staffing by 10 percent.
'Our decision to restructure reflects months of strategic planning and careful financial analysis,' Paula Thornton Greear, President and CEO of PPMI said in a news release. 'These necessary changes strengthen PPMI's ability to adapt quickly in a challenging political landscape. While implementing difficult decisions is never easy, they are essential to protect our long-term capacity to fulfill our mission and serve Michigan communities for generations to come.'
Trump himself for years has articulated his interest in defunding Planned Parenthood for providing abortion care, and the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS announced this week that it is placing a freeze on millions of dollars to a federal program dedicated to family planning for low-income patients known as Title X.
Nine Planned Parenthood state affiliates that receive federal money from the 55-year-old Title X family planning program got notices Monday, informing them that their funding is being 'temporarily withheld.' The notice pointed to 'possible violations' of federal civil rights law and President Donald Trump's executive orders — including prohibitions on promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.'
Whitmer orders state departments to review Trump executive orders on DEI, transgender policies
The cut comes as a devastating blow to health care providers like PPMI, Thornton Greear said in the news release. And though PPMI plans on expanding hours for its Virtual Health Center for telehealth services like birth control, medicated abortions and gender affirming health care, the current administration's attitude towards reproductive health care has PPMI preparing for further challenges.
'And in the coming weeks and months, additional attacks against sexual and reproductive health care providers are expected, including restricting access to medication abortion, restricting Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood health services, further restrictions on Title X funding, or even ending the program altogether, as the administration has already done to so many other lifesaving Federal funding streams and agencies,' Thornton Greear said.
With the Marquette and Petoskey locations set to be permanently closed by the end of April, Michigan's Upper Peninsula and much of Northern Michigan will be more than 100 miles from a Planned Parenthood, with the next closest Planned Parenthood clinic to Marquette nearly five hours away, in Traverse City.
The closing of the Marquette clinic is a sad affair, the Marquette County Democratic Party said in a news release Thursday, adding that the group stands ready to advocate for those in the Upper Peninsula to continue to receive the services they had been accessing through the Planned Parenthood clinic.
'We are outraged by the partisan Republican federal funding freeze that caused the loss of the local clinic. Planned Parenthood has long put into practice values that Democrats hold dear, such as personal autonomy, women's rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, and affordable access to health care services,' the party said in a news release.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Moderna's mRNA RSV vaccine wins expanded FDA approval for younger adults
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded approval of Moderna's respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine to include younger adults at risk, though its still uncertain whether the shot will be recommended for broader use in the national immunisation schedule. Moderna's vaccine, known under the brand name mRESVIA, became the first non-Covid-19 messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccine to be approved in the US in May 2024. Until now, the vaccine was licensed for the prevention of lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) caused by RSV in adults aged 60 years and older. The expanded approval now includes individuals aged 18 to 59 who are at risk of RSV. This approval was supported by results from Moderna's Phase III study (NCT06067230), which demonstrated the vaccine's immune response worked just as well in this age group compared to the existing approved age group of 60 years and older. Infants and older adults remain the most vulnerable age groups to RSV, though over one-third of adults between 18 and 59 years of age have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of developing a severe form of the disease. "RSV poses a serious health risk to adults with certain chronic conditions, and today's approval marks an important step forward in our ability to protect additional populations from severe illness from RSV," said Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. Moderna said it plans to have mRESVIA available for both both younger adults and older adults in the US in time for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season. This usually begins around November and peaks in the mid-Winter months. mRESVIA is the second approved product in the US for Moderna, along with its Covid-19 vaccine Spikevax. The pharma company has been seeking outside investment to fund late-stage trials for further infectious disease vaccine candidates, amid a strategy to diversify its portfolio. Whilst the label expansion reflects an easing in regulatory tension surrounding mRNA vaccines under the Trump administration, FDA approval does not automatically mean shots enter national immunisation schedules. That is instead decided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The CDC currently recommends the vaccine for adults aged 75 and older, as well as for adults aged 60 to 74 who are at increased risk of infection. In April, the CDC's ACIP recommended the use of approved RSV vaccines in at-risk adults aged 50 to 59. This week, US health secretary Robert F Kennedy (RFK) Jr axed the entire ACIP panel of experts, replacing members with vaccine sceptics and individuals with no prior public health strategy experience. The reshuffle has raised concerns about the future of the US immunisation schedule and the scope of vaccine recommendations. 'Investor focus will likely shift to the CDC's ACIP's next meeting, which is scheduled to proceed on June 25-27,' said William Blair analyst Miles Minter in a research note. 'This will be the first time for investors to see the refreshed ACIP in action and will be important for sentiment in the vaccine sector, which continues to decline in our view. Ultimately, we see the biggest headwind to the RSV vaccination market as restrictive ACIP recommendations that do not include re-dosing potential,' Minter added. The label expansion sees Moderna catch up with Pfizer, which already has an RSV vaccine approved for adults aged 18 years and over. Like mRESVIA, Pfizer's Abrysvo has the requirement of increased disease risk for those between 18 and 59, whilst anyone above the age of 60 is eligible for the jab. Pfizer still has a market advantage, however, with Abrysvo the only vaccine product approved for infants. It also gained FDA approval a year before mRESVIA, giving it first to market advantage. GSK also has an FDA-approved vaccine in the form of Arexvy, though its label only covers those at risk in individuals aged between 50 through 59 years, along with the standard indication of ages 60 and over. "Moderna's mRNA RSV vaccine wins expanded FDA approval for younger adults" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. 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
Vox
22 minutes ago
- Vox
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'
Vox
22 minutes ago
- Vox
What drove the tech right's — and Elon Musk's — big, failed bet on Trump
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, there's been an emergence of a real and influential tech right over the last few years. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images I live and work in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't know anyone who says they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. I know, on the other hand, quite a few who voted for him in 2024, and quite a few more who — while they didn't vote for Trump because of his many crippling personal foibles, corruption, penchant for destroying the global economy, etc. — have thoroughly soured on the Democratic Party. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's not just my professional networks. While tech has generally been very liberal in its political support and giving, the last few years have seen the emergence of a real and influential tech right. Elon Musk, of course, is by far the most famous, but he didn't start the tech right by himself. And while his break with Trump — which Musk now seems to be backpedaling on — might have changed his role within the tech right, I don't think this shift will end with him. The rise of the tech right The Bay Area tech scene has always to my mind been best understood as left-libertarian — socially liberal, but suspicious of big government and excited about new things from cryptocurrency to charter cities to mosquito gene drives to genetically engineered superbabies to tooth bacteria. That array of attitudes sometimes puts them at odds with governments (and much of the public, which tends to be much less welcoming of new technology). The tech world valorizes founders and doers, and everyone knows two or three stories about a company that only succeeded because it was willing to break some city regulations. Lots of founders are immigrants; lots are LGBTQ+. For a long time, this set of commitments put tech firmly on the political left — and indeed tech employees overwhelmingly vote and donate to the Democratic Party. Related The AI that apparently wants Elon Musk to die But over the last 10 years, I think three things changed. The first was what Vox at the time called the Great Awokening — a sweeping adoption of what had been a bunch of niche liberal social justice ideas, from widespread acceptance of trans people to suspicion of any sex or race disparity in hiring to #MeToo awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace. A lot of this shift at tech companies was employee driven; again, tech employees are mostly on the left. And some of it was good! But some of it was illiberal — rejecting the idea that we can and should work with people we profoundly disagree with — and identitarian, in that it focused more on what demographic categories we belong to than our commonalities. We're now in the middle of a backlash, which I think is all the more intense in tech because the original woke movement was all the more intense in tech. The second thing that changed was the macroeconomic environment. When I first joined a tech company in 2017, interest rates were low and VC funding was incredibly easy to get. Startups were everywhere, and companies were desperately competing to hire employees. As a result, employees had a lot of power; CEOs were often scared of them. The third was a deliberate effort by many liberals to go after a tech scene they saw as their enemy. The Biden administration ended up staffed by a lot of people ideologically committed to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's view of the world, where big tech was the enemy of liberal democracy and the tools of antitrust should be used to break it up. Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission acted on those convictions, going after big tech companies like Amazon. Whether you think this was the right call in economic terms — I mostly think it was not — it was decidedly self-destructive in political terms. So in 2024, some of tech (still not a majority, but a smaller minority than in the past two Trump elections) went right. The tech world watched with bated breath as Musk announced DOGE: Would the administration bring about the deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-woke wish list they believed that only the administration could? …and the immediate failure The answer so far has been no. (Many people on the tech right are still more optimistic than me, and point at a small handful of victories, but my assessment is that they're wearing rose-colored glasses to the point of outright blindness.) Some deregulation has happened, but any beneficial effects it would have had on investment have been more than canceled out by the tariffs' catastrophic effects on businesses' ability to plan for the future. They did at least get the tax cuts for the rich, if the 'big, beautiful bill' passes, but that's about all they got — and the ultra-rich will be poorer this year anyway thanks to the unsteady stock market. The Republicans, when out of power, had a critique of the Democrats which spoke to the tech right, the populist right, the white supremacists and moderate Black and Latino voters alike. But it's much easier to complain about Democrats in a way that all of those disparate interest groups find compelling than to govern in a way that keeps them all happy. Once the Trump administration actually had to choose, it chose basically none of the tech right's priorities. They took a bad bet — and I think it'd behoove the Democrats to think, as Trump's coalition fractures, about which of those voters can be won back.
