What to know about states blocking Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.
The federal government and many states already block using Medicaid funds to cover abortion. But the state-federal health insurance program for lower-income people does pay for other services from Planned Parenthood, including birth control, cancer screenings and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
The ruling comes at a moment when Congress is considering blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Medicaid funding, a move that the group says would force hundreds of clinic closings — most of them in states where abortion remains legal.
Here are things to know about the situation:
Abortion opponents see it as a victory on principle
This legal dispute goes back to a 2018 executive order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster that barred abortion providers from receiving Medicaid money in the state, even for services unrelated to abortion.
In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overruled lower courts and said that patients don't necessarily have the right to sue for Medicaid to cover their health care from specific providers.
Abortion opponents hail it as a victory on principle.
'No one should be forced to subsidize abortion,' CatholicVote President Kelsey Reinhardt said in a statement.
Abortion rights advocates say it will hurt health care access
Supporters of Planned Parenthood see the ruling as an obstacle to health care aside from abortion.
Planned Parenthood 'provides services for highly disadvantaged populations and this will mean not only that many women in the state will lose their right to choose providers, but it will also mean that many women will lose services altogether,' said Lawrence Gostin, who specializes in public health law at Georgetown Law.
For many people with Medicaid, Gostin said, Planned Parenthood is a trusted service provider, and it's often the closest one.
Others emphasize that the people who could be most impacted are women who already face the greatest obstacles to getting health care.
'People enrolled in Medicaid, including young people and people of color, already face too many barriers to getting health care,' Kimberly Inez McGuire, the executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equality, said in a statement. 'This decision makes a difficult situation worse.'
The implications may be narrow in South Carolina, but broader elsewhere
Planned Parenthood has two clinics in South Carolina, one in Charleston and one in Columbia.
Combined, they've been receiving about $90,000 a year from Medicaid out of nearly $9 billion a year the program spends in the state.
South Carolina has banned most abortions after six weeks gestational age, before many women realize they're pregnant. It's one of four states to bar abortion at that point. Another 12 are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy. The bans were implemented after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The most recent high court ruling isn't a guarantee that other states will follow South Carolina's lead, but Republican attorneys general of 18 other states filed court papers supporting the state's position in the case.
'We can imagine that there's anti-abortion legislators in states who are looking to this case and may try to replicate what South Carolina has done,' said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.
The federal government is also targeting Planned Parenthood
The U.S. House last month passed a budget measure that would bar all federal payments for 10 years to nonprofit groups that provide abortion and received more than $1 million in federal funding in 2024.
A Senate vote on the measure, which President Donald Trump supports, could happen in coming days.
Planned Parenthood says that if the measure becomes law, it would force its affiliates to close up to 200 of their 600 facilities across the U.S. The hardest-hit places would be the states where abortion is legal.
If the federal effort is successful, Friedrich-Karnik said states that support abortion rights could use their own tax revenue to keep clinics open.
On a call with reporters this week, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said it's a priority for her group to hobble Planned Parenthood.
She said starving Planned Parenthood of Medicaid reimbursements would not have a major impact on patients, because other clinics offer similar services without providing abortion.
'Medicaid money is attached to the person, so she'll retain the same amount of money,' Dannenfelser said. 'She'll just take it to a different place.'
Abortion funding is already battered
The 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended the nationwide right to abortion jolted the abortion system across the U.S. and left clinics struggling.
Women in states with bans in place now use abortion pills or travel to states where it's legal.
Surveys have found that the number of monthly abortions nationally has risen since the court ruling.
But over the same time period, some clinics have closed and funds that help people obtain abortion have said it's hard to stretch their money to cover the added cost of travel.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
8 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court meets Friday to decide 6 remaining cases, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is meeting Friday to decide the final six cases of its term, including President Donald Trump's bid to enforce his executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on Oct. 6. The birthright citizenship order has been blocked nationwide by three lower courts. The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. Decisions also are expected in several other important cases. The court seemed likely during arguments in April to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools. Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The justices also are weighing a three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana that is making its second trip to the Supreme Court. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are considering whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Free speech rights are at the center of a case over a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography. Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
Winnipeg Free Press
9 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Brazil's Supreme Court clears way to hold social media companies liable for user content
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's Supreme Court agreed on Thursday on details of a decision to hold social media companies liable for what their users post, clearing the way for it go into effect within weeks. The 8-3 vote in Brazil's top court orders tech giants like Google, Meta and TikTok to actively monitor content that involves hate speech, racism and incitation to violence and act to remove it. The case has unsettled the relationship between the South American nation and the U.S. government. Critics have expressed concern that the move could threaten free speech if platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic. After Thursday's ruling is published by the court, people will be able to sue social media companies for hosting illegal content if they refuse to remove it after a victim brings it to their attention. The court didn't set out firm rules on what content is illegal, leaving it to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The ruling strengthens a law that requires companies to remove content only after court orders, which were often ignored. It's the product of two cases accepted by the court last year in which social media companies were accused of failed to act against users promoting fraud, child pornography and violence. A majority of the 11 justices voted to approve the change two weeks ago, but it took until today to reach consensus on how to implement it. The justices also agreed that social media companies will not be liable if they can show they took steps to remove illegal content in a timely fashion. Google said in a statement that is analyzing the court's decision. 'We remain open for dialogue,' the company said. Brazil's top court came to the decision after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials involved in censoring American citizens. Thursday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms.
Winnipeg Free Press
9 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients. The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency. The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people. Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids. 'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.' The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants. The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding. Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services. Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020. One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others. 'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote. The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said. Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint. 'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
