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
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
SCOTUS delivers gut punch to Planned Parenthood
The Big Story In a ruling made along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Medicaid beneficiaries don't have the right to sue to obtain care from a provider of their choice, paving the way for South Carolina to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. © AP The law says 'any individual' insured through Medicaid 'may obtain' care from any qualified and willing provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides. The suit, supported by the Trump administration, was brought by South Carolina. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling Thursday, saying, 'Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.' The ruling has implications for other states, at a time when red states across the country are looking for ways to deprive Planned Parenthood of funding. Nationally, the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning grants from nine Planned Parenthood affiliates. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri already block Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, and the organization has said it expected many other Republican-led states to do the same if the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina. 'Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. 'And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.' Roughly 72 million low-income Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid, according to the most recent enrollment numbers. And more than 1.3 million South Carolinians — or 20 percent of the state — are enrolled in the program, according to the health policy nonprofit KFF. 'As extremists in every branch of our government are targeting Planned Parenthood and attempting to strip millions of Americans of the care their health centers provide, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated green light to anti-abortion politicians,' Reproductive Freedom Caucus co-chairs Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Republicans were dealt a significant blow Thursday when Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised that major pieces of the GOP megabill's Medicaid policy can't pass with a simple majority. Much of the savings in the bill come from Medicaid cuts, and the ruling impacts several of the largest and most controversial ones, including a plan to slash states' use of health care provider taxes as well as several … Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Reproductive rights advocates are reeling from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina in a legal case to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which they fear will give other states the green light to do the same. 'Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crises,' said Paige Johnson, … Vaccine panel backs RFK Jr. in opposing thimerosal, a flu shot preservative The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently remade by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted Thursday in favor of only recommending flu shots that don't contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The ACIP, which provides guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), voted on four draft recommendations, three of which had to do with recommending … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid … Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Revenge tax gets axed
The Big Story Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asked House and Senate Republicans to scrap the 'revenge tax' on foreign investments from their versions of President Trump's sweeping tax bill. © Greg Nash In a post on the social platform X, Bessent said Thursday that he asked GOP lawmakers to strike Section 899, which would have imposed a tax of up to 20 percent on investments from countries with economic policies deemed unfair to U.S. businesses, from their legislation. Bessent said the provision was no longer necessary after the U.S. and its partners in the G7 reached a 'joint understanding … that defends American interests.' He said the deal will '[preserve] our tax base' and that 'OECD Pillar 2 taxes will not apply to U.S. companies.' OECD Pillar 2 is a global minimum tax agreement that the U.S. is a party to but that has not been domestically implemented so far. The retaliatory tax in the Republican tax-and-spending cut bill specifically called out Pillar 2's 'undertaxed profit rule' (UTPR) as well as digital services taxes that could apply to U.S. tech giants. The undertaxed profits rule allows U.S. subsidiaries of multinational companies to be taxed if their parent company isn't taxed at the base rate of 15 percent. The Hill's Sylvan Lane and Tobias Burns have more here. Welcome to The Hill's Business & Economy newsletter, I'm Aris Folley — covering the intersection of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads Key business and economic news with implications this week and beyond: Trump Mobile removes 'Made in the USA' language from site The Trump Organization's new mobile phone venture, Trump Mobile, has removed language from its website suggesting that its forthcoming smartphones will be made in the U.S. White House, senators eye September deadline for crypto framework A White House adviser and two key senators said Thursday they are now hoping to pass legislation laying out oversight of the crypto industry by the end of September, pushing back an earlier August deadline. Economy slips from most important issues list for first time this year: Poll The economy is not the most pressing issue for a majority of surveyed voters for the first time this year, according to a new poll. Tax Watch Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings to offset the cost of making President Trump's corporate tax cuts permanent, according to a Democratic summary of the parliamentarian's ruling. The decision could force Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to reconsider his plan to bring the Senate bill up for a vote this week. The cap on health care provider taxes in both states that expanded Medicaid and did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act was projected to save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, but it would have forced states to shoulder substantially more of the cost for Medicaid coverage. The Hill's Alexander Bolton has more here. Tax Watch is a regular feature focused on the fight over tax reform and extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts this year. Email a tip The Ticker Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: In Other News Branch out with more stories from the day: Windows' infamous 'blue screen of death' will soon turn black Nearly every Windows user has had a run in with the infamous 'Blue Screen of Death' at some point … Good to Know Business and economic news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Top stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid a broader push to discredit media outlets reporting on intelligence laying out the extent of damages done by U.S. strikes to Iranian nuclear sites. Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' hours after she delivered a major ruling against a Republican proposal to slash hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid spending to … Read more What People Think Opinions related to business and economic issues submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
