Supreme Court rules for South Carolina over bid to defund Planned Parenthood
The court held in a 6-3 ruling on ideological lines with the conservative justices in the majority that the federal law in question does not allow people who are enrolled in the Medicaid program to file such claims.
The ruling authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is a boost to the state's effort to prevented Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through Medicaid, a federal program for low-income people that is administered by the states, because it prevents individual patients to enforce their right to choose their preferred health care provider.
Federal funding for abortion is already banned, but conservatives have long targeted Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services including abortions where allowed, for any funding it receives even it is for other health care-related services.
They argue that even non-abortion related funding that flows to Planned Parenthood would help it carry out its broader agenda that favors abortion rights.
The state's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood came before the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling in 2022.
South Carolina now has a six-week abortion ban, meaning abortions are rare in the state.
Planned Parenthood has facilities in Charleston and Columbia that provide abortion care in compliance with the new law, as well as other health care services, including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.
In 2018, Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that prohibited Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic, the local affiliate of the national group, from providing family planning services under Medicaid.
Julie Edwards, a Medicaid-eligible patient who wants to use Planned Parenthood, joined a lawsuit filed by the group, saying that under federal civil rights law she could enforce her rights in court.
A federal judge ruled in her favor, and after lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
BRASILIA, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Jeanine Pirro will let people carry shotguns and rifles in DC - despite Trump's crackdown - without fear of prosecution
Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who currently runs the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., will no longer pursue felony charges against registered gun owners who carry firearms in the nation's capital, according to a memo seen by the Washington Post. The new policy, crafted from guidance sent by the Justice Department, means that anyone who has a firearm permit and a registered rifle or shotgun in D.C. may concealed carry. Previously, the gun law in D.C. prohibited people from carrying those types of firearms except in narrow circumstances. Registered pistol owners have long been permitted to conceal carry. Pirro told the Post that the change aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings, which struck down several local laws that sought to restrict firearms in crowded areas such as New York City or D.C. But it also arrives as Pirro's office, in collaboration with local and federal law enforcement, is attempting to crack down on crime in the nation's capital at the behest of President Donald Trump, who alleges crime is rampant in D.C. 'Without question, President Donald Trump and I are committed to prosecuting gun crime,' Pirro said in a statement to the Post. 'This unprecedented number of gun case prosecutions in both federal and local court is only done consistent with the constitution and the laws of the land.' While homicides in D.C. hit a two-decade high in 2023, violent crime has significantly declined since then, according to data collected by the Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. Despite the evidence of dwindling crime, Trump continues to claim the city is dangerous and alleges police manipulated numbers to make it appear safer. In 2023, authorities recovered approximately 98 rifles and 38 shotguns in D.C., according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Recovery of firearms does not mean they were used in crimes. Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Tuesday that the federal government's de facto takeover of D.C. to crack down on crime has led to approximately 68 guns being seized. She did not specify what type of guns were most seized. Yet, despite deploying federal law enforcement from various agencies, including the ATF, in part, to get illegal guns off the street, the U.S. Attorney's Office is now loosening some gun laws. Pirro told the Post that the new guidance does not prevent her office from pursuing unlawful gun possession charges against those who are not permitted to have a firearm, such as a person convicted of a felony. But it does preclude bringing charges of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun. Prosecutors have used the D.C. laws under review to charge defendants in high-profile cases, such as a 2019 shotgun attack on Northeast Washington and the 'Pizzagate' shooter, according to the Post.
Rhyl Journal
16 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Rylan Clark calls for more stories about transgender people amid ‘wave of hate'
In an appearance at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Clark, 36, who has presented on This Morning and Big Brother's Bit On The Side, spoke about the adversity LGBT+ people can face, as well as his own experience growing up gay. He said: 'I feel that there is a mass wave of hate just sweeping the community, especially trans people at the moment. 'There's a lot of people that are talking about bathrooms and spaces and things like this and people are just being tarnished with the same brush.' The presenter explained there is a mindset that because one transgender person does something bad 'that means all trans people are awful people'. He said: 'Trans people … they're going through a wave of hate at the minute, and I think there is space to show real stories, real trans people. 'A lot of people out there think trans people are the enemy, f*** me. 'I'd like you to walk a mile in their shoes and see who the real enemy is out there to people, because the stories that I know of friends of mine and people that I've grown up with, transitions are awful, absolutely awful.' Over the Easter period, the Supreme Court declared that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex. The Equality And Human Rights Commission's interim update on the implications of the judgment said transgender people should not use toilets and other services of the gender they identify as. Trans rights protests took place across the country following the ruling and celebrities showed their support by signing an open letter in solidarity with transgender people. At the end of July, the London Trans Pride saw a record-breaking turnout of about 100,000 people, making it 'the largest Trans Pride event in history', according to organisers. Clark said he does not want or need Pride but added that the annual celebratory event is needed because of the way LGBT+ people are treated. At the Scottish TV event, the BBC Radio 2 presenter spoke to actor Russell Tovey and the two reflected on their respective experiences growing up gay in Essex. Speaking about a nightclub he would go to as a young man, Tovey said: 'It was a really important safe space, which I didn't realise at the time how important that was. 'And now you hear about so many safe spaces disappearing for so many queer people, and the importance of that, of somewhere where you can relax and be amongst the people who understand you. 'The disappearances of those is dangerous.'
