Judge orders Trump administration to continue Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
The new order replaces and expands a previous edict handed down by US district judge Indira Talwani in Boston last week. The judge initially granted a preliminary injunction specifically blocking the government from cutting Medicaid payments only to Planned Parenthood affiliates that did not provide abortions or did not receive at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year.
'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani wrote in her Monday order.
'In particular, restricting members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.'
More than 80 million people rely on Medicaid, the US government's insurance program for low-income people. Trump's tax bill instructed the federal government to end Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023, such as Planned Parenthood.
It is already illegal to use Medicaid to pay for most abortions, but Planned Parenthood clinics – who treat a disproportionate number of people who use Medicaid – rely on the program to reimburse them for services such as birth control, STI tests and cancer screenings.
In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood had argued that they would be at risk of closing nearly 200 clinics in 24 states if they are cut off from Medicaid funds. These closures would probably be felt most strongly in blue states, since they are home to larger numbers of people who use Medicaid. A Planned Parenthood affiliate in California has already been forced to close five clinics as a result of the 'defunding' provision.
Planned Parenthood estimated that, in all, more than 1 million patients could lose care.
'We will keep fighting this cruel law so that everyone can get birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and other critical health care, no matter their insurance,' Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president and CEO, Alexis McGill Johnson, said in a statement after the Monday ruling.
Planned Parenthood is battling overwhelming political and economic headwinds. Even if it prevails against the Trump administration, its affiliates could still be removed from Medicaid in red states, thanks to a June decision by the US supreme court in favor of South Carolina in a case involving the state's attempt to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program.
On Monday, the state of Missouri also sued Planned Parenthood Federation of America – the mothership organization that knits together Planned Parenthood's network of regional affiliates – over accusations that the organization downplayed the medical risks of a common abortion pill, mifepristone, 'to cut costs and boost revenue'. The lawsuit, which asks for more than $1m in damages, is part of an ongoing campaign by anti-abortion activists to cut off access to mifepristone.
More than 100 studies, conducted across dozens of countries and more than three decades, have concluded that mifepristone is a safe way to end a pregnancy.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
AstraZeneca seeks US drug price cuts amid expansion plans, strong demand
July 29 (Reuters) - AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab has proposed price cuts to its drugs in the United States, its CEO said on Tuesday, days after unveiling a $50 billion investment to expand there, as President Donald Trump pressures pharmaceuticals companies to lower costs. Speaking to journalists after second-quarter revenue and profit beat expectations, CEO Pascal Soriot said Trump's administration was reviewing the company's proposals. He did not specify which drugs were included. Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs as he also pushes drugmakers to reduce prices to what other countries pay. However, he signalled earlier this month that companies would be given a year to 18 months to "get their act together" before any sector-specific levies take effect. "We definitely support the idea of rebalancing with some reduction of pricing levels in the U.S., and some increase, we're not talking about massive increases, in Europe," AstraZeneca's Soriot said. He added he expects all medicines for U.S. patients to be produced locally within a few months, and is also considering selling some medicines to customers directly. AstraZeneca shares rose as much as 3% after its results, but pared some gains to trade up 1.6% by 1214 GMT. "The big uncertainty, unsurprisingly, remains U.S. tariffs and Most Favoured Nation pricing in the pharmaceutical sector. AstraZeneca has looked to get ahead of this uncertainty," said Sheena Berry, a healthcare analyst at Quilter Cheviot. The U.S. accounted for more than 40% of AstraZeneca's revenue in 2024. The UK's largest-listed company by market value had prioritised the U.S. market - the world's largest, worth $635 billion - even before Trump's return to office. AstraZeneca's efforts are paying off as strong U.S. demand, and robust sales of newer cancer, heart and kidney disease medicines drove total revenue for the second quarter 11% higher to $14.46 billion, on a constant currency basis. It logged double-digit growth in the U.S. despite headwinds from changes in U.S. Medicare price negotiations, while sales of cancer drugs including Tagrisso, Lynparza, Calquence, Truqap and Imfinzi beat expectations. Core earnings stood at $2.17 per share. Analysts were expecting $2.16, from $14.15 billion in sales, according to a company-provided consensus. AstraZeneca is betting on a wave of expected launches of 20 new medicines and its U.S. expansion to reach $80 billion in annual revenue by 2030 and offset generic competition. On Tuesday, it maintained its 2025 outlook and increased its interim dividend by 3%. The drugmaker in April forecast only a limited impact from potential U.S. tariffs, adding it would be able to meet its annual outlook if the levies on European imports were similar to those in other industries. A European Union-U.S. trade deal over the weekend will result in a 15% tariff on most goods, including pharmaceuticals, from the region.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
US to burn $10m of birth control intended for low-income countries
The US government is incinerating $9.7 million worth of contraceptives, originally purchased for low−income countries, at an additional cost of $167,000. It comes despite offers from charities and European governments, including France and Belgium, to take on the costs of distributing the supplies. The contraceptives were acquired under a contract partially cancelled as part of President Donald Trump 's significant reductions to foreign aid. Critics, including charities and medical experts, contend that the destruction is driven by a political agenda harmful to women, rather than efficiency, and will exacerbate health crises in vulnerable populations. The US State Department 's claim that the birth control is "abortifacient" has been refuted by medical professionals and a congressional aide who inspected the stock.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America
A new mom has shared the shockingly high cost of giving birth in America - and it's well over six figures. Emily Fisher, 36, from Columbus, Ohio, welcomed twin girls last month and was left stunned when she saw an insurance claim come through for her delivery that was over $10,000. Completely shocked by the immense figure, she decided to go back and total up all the bills she had received over the course of her pregnancy to determine just how much having a baby in the US really costs. And after adding everything up, Emily found that having her baby girls would have cost her a whopping $120,527.51 had she not had insurance. She shared her findings in a video shared to TikTok earlier this month and it quickly went viral, leaving thousands across the globe just as surprised as she was. 'So I am five weeks postpartum with twin girls and I've been seeing a lot of headlines recently about how the birth rate in America is declining and how concerning that is,' Emily began in the video. 'I thought to myself, I could think of a lot of reasons why the birth rate might be declining. First and foremost, cost. 'So I decided to take it upon myself and look at every bill that I received over the course of my pregnancy and total what it costs to deliver twins in America.' Emily explained that she is considered 'advanced maternal age' and was pregnant with 'dichorionic diamniotic twins' which made her pregnancy 'high risk.' In addition, about halfway through the pregnancy her doctor raised concerns about potential 'fetal growth restriction,' so from about 22 weeks on she had to have two appointments every week with her OBGYN and a maternal fetal medicine specialist to make sure the babies were healthy. 'So what was the total cost of that? From the start of my pregnancy through delivery and me walking out of those hospital doors, the total bill for my care was $120,527.51,' she said in the video. 'Now I am very fortunate great insurance and I have a low deductible so over the course of my pregnancy out of pocket I paid $2,038.70. 'I know that is relatively good but still, $2,000 for something that is considered necessary and vital to the future of America is pretty significant.' Emily added that on top of that, her newborns both received bills for their delivery. 'It's kind of funny, they're not even able to blink yet and they've already been billed more than the total cost of my student loans,' she continued. 'Baby A received a bill for $15,124.55 and Baby B was billed $14,875.55, I guess there was some sort of sibling discount. She added, 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' The bills are seen above 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' She then broke down what some of the highest costs were during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the delivery itself and the hospital stay afterwards was the most costly expense. Emily explained that she had a scheduled C-section at 37 weeks and spent four days in the hospital post delivery, and the total cost of her care before insurance was $65,665.50. The second highest cost during the pregnancy was an appointment she had about seven months in, during which she complained to her doctor that she was having headaches. She said they took her blood pressure and it was slightly elevated, so they monitored the heart rate of the babies for 20 minutes to 'make sure they were okay.' She was then given 'two extra strength Tylenol' and they 'did some blood work.' 'The cost that was billed to my insurance for that visit was $9,115,' shared the new mom. 'All things considered, I'm very grateful for the experience that I had and very grateful to have great insurance, but I know that for a lot of people who live in America that is simply not possible,' she concluded. 'And if I did not have insurance delivery my two baby girls, I would not be able to afford it. 'In fact, I probably would have had to file bankruptcy had I not had insurance. So when people act confused why the birth rates are down, maybe it's not necessarily all attributed to lifestyle choices, maybe it's not because people aren't feeling the vibe of having kids, maybe it's because the cost of having a baby in America is over six figures.' While chatting with the Daily Mail about it, Emily, who used to work on the healthcare space, said she believes the insurance system in America 'needs a complete overhaul.' 'Given that the US is the one of (if not the only) developed nation in the world without some sort of universal healthcare, we're falling behind,' she said. 'People are spending too much on basic and necessary care. Medical debt is one of the number one reasons for bankruptcy in the US, and it shouldn't be that way. 'If we invested in a system that put the health its people first, everyone would be better off. 'And given the decline in birth rates, if our politicians are genuinely concerned about falling birth rates, they would be incentivizing people to have children. You shouldn't have to pay to give birth.' She added that while she was 'shocked' by the high number that her insurance was billed, she was 'not surprised at the same time.' 'The first thing that came to mind when I saw the total was, "How do people without insurance afford this?"' she shared. 'But I've always known that healthcare in America is a business. Ultimately, like most necessities in the US, privatized insurance is designed to make money.' She said she certainly wasn't expecting her video, which was viewed more than one million times, to get as much attention as it did, but she's so glad that it has sparked a conversation. 'I hope my video makes people think twice about having kids in America. Because until the system is redesigned to truly support the people, we shouldn't be buying into it,' she concluded. 'I'm fortunate to have good health coverage. I'm not on the hook for much as far as the cost of my pregnancy, but that is only the beginning for my family and what we'll pay to raise my kids. 'Now we have to think about things like paying for their health coverage, daycare, food, housing and college. 'All of these things are only getting more and more expensive and almost unreachable for people.'
