South Carolina lawmakers hear arguments over Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
SOUTH CAROLINA (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Abortion is back in the spotlight in South Carolina. Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court heard a case dealing with the Palmetto State's refusal to cover care provided by Planned Parenthood using Medicaid funding.
The arguments come a month after state lawmakers in Columbia held a hearing on legislation that would restrict access to abortion even further.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster was in DC for the oral arguments before the Supreme Court's nine justices. He and his allies argued that Medicaid funding should not be used to pay for any type of care at facilities that provide abortions. They contend that money for medical care could still subsidize the procedure.
'I believe that the verdict, the decision of this court will be that the people of South Carolina have the right to make this decision for themselves, for our state,' said McMaster.
The opposition, specifically Planned Parenthood, argued that if pro-life advocates have their way, vulnerable patients will lose access to vital care that has nothing to do with abortion.
'For a lot of people, there won't be another affordable option to get primary, preventative care,' said Molly Rivera with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
While Supreme Court justices weigh arguments, stricter abortion laws are still being considered at the state legislature. State Rep John McCravy's H 3457 would put in place a near-total ban, doing away with the state's current six-week law.
'This is not a total ban, we hear this over and over again, we have numerous exceptions in this bill for life or serious health of the mother,' said McCravy.
While conversations around abortion in South Carolina remain ongoing, timelines are hazy. It will be months before we see a ruling come down from the Supreme Court, and that bill has yet to do go through any votes.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
Employers have perhaps never faced more challenging or extensive legal obligations than those present today. From the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill that is set to become law later this year to the rise of sensitive social and political issues within the workforce, our recent survey of more than 500 businesses found there is a new legal landscape that many employers are struggling to navigate. First, there is the issue of cost. Some 81pc of employers told us they expect the Employment Rights Bill to increase business costs, with 47pc intending to meet these by scaling back on future recruitment plans and a third saying they intend to make headcount reductions among current staff. Second, there is a knowledge gap. 58pc of employers said they knew little to nothing about the legislative changes coming in, despite it being described by the Government as 'the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation'. Third, we found that even when employers think they understand the changes, many are confused about what they are actually required to do. For example, although broadly supportive of more stringent protections against sexual harassment, employers are barely able to distinguish between the existing law and the new provisions that are being introduced, our survey found. This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet. Laura Farris is a former employment barrister and ex-Tory MP; Lord Andrew Cooper is former director of strategy at Downing Street. Both are partners at FGS Global Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
South Korea President Lee's election law violation hearing postponed indefinitely, court says
SEOUL (Reuters) -A Seoul court said on Monday it will indefinitely postpone a trial of President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court. The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed. Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported on Monday. The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Legislative roundup: DHS highlights vital role of Medicaid in supporting economy
Jun. 8—Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) Secretary Dr. Val Arkoosh, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Michael Humphreys and Pennie Executive Director Devon Trolley this week discussed the importance of Medicaid in providing health care coverage to millions of Pennsylvanians amid proposed federal cuts to the program — which would kick more than 300,000 Pennsylvanians off their health insurance. More than three million Pennsylvanians — or 1 in 4 people — get their health care coverage through Medicaid, also known as Medical Assistance in Pennsylvania. With this coverage, Pennsylvanians can see a doctor, fill prescriptions and access preventive services like health screenings. This coverage is vital to helping people stay healthy, take care of their families and contribute to our economy. "All of us know someone — whether its ourselves, a friend, loved one, or a neighbor — who Medicaid has helped," Arkoosh said. "But no matter how you personally get your health care coverage, Medicaid is vital to protecting the health of your community. Congressional Republicans' proposed cuts to Medicaid would be devastating not only for those who would lose their health coverage, but for all of us who would face the real life consequences of crowded emergency departments, increases in the cost of health insurance, and the catastrophic effects on economies and health systems in rural areas." More than 300,000 Pennsylvanians will lose access to Medicaid due to: —New eligibility requirements. —Increased bureaucratic paperwork because of proposed six-month re-determinations, whether eligibility is determined every six months instead of every year. —New work reporting requirements, which will require more staff and new IT infrastructure. The bill also proposes other federal cuts that will further destabilize our health care infrastructure and threaten the closure of hospitals, especially in our rural communities. Half of Pennsylvania's 65 hospitals serving rural communities operate at a deficit, struggling to survive, and relying significantly on Medicaid to cover the cost of providing care. "The Congressional Republicans' bill would have devastating consequences for Pennsylvanians. From unaffordable health care costs to a higher number of uninsured individuals seeking uncompensated care through our hospital systems, this bill should concern every one of us." said Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Michael Humphreys. As of today, Congressional Republicans' bill needs to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed into law. There are no changes to Medicaid. Lawrence confirmed as Pa.'s Consumer Advocate Attorney General Dave Sunday this week announced that the Pennsylvania Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination of Darryl Lawrence to serve as Pennsylvania's Consumer Advocate. Lawrence has been serving as interim Consumer Advocate since Feb. 4, where he has been representing Commonwealth consumers in public utility service quality and pricing matters. Lawrence has been with the Office of Consumer Advocate since June 2005 and previously held the position of Senior Assistant Consumer Advocate for the office. "I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed my appointment of Darryl Lawrence as Pennsylvania's Consumer Advocate, and am confident that Darryl will serve Pennsylvanians well in that capacity," Sunday said. "Darryl dedicated his career to advocating on behalf of Pennsylvanians who may not have a voice in the regulatory, judicial, and legislative processes attached to public utilities. He has proven himself as an experienced, tough, fair, and honest advocate." The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate was established by the General Assembly in 1976 to serve as the legal representative for all utility ratepayers in the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate is housed in the Office of Attorney General, but functions independently. The Office of Consumer Advocate has discretion and authority to intervene in litigation on its own behalf, and has actively participated in matters before the Pennsylvania Utility Commission and in state and federal courts. Public utilities include electric, natural gas, water, wastewater, and telecom companies under either Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. PUC Chairman confirmed for second term The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission this week thanked the State Senate for unanimously confirming the reappointment of Chairman Stephen M. DeFrank to a second term as Commissioner and expressed appreciation to Governor Josh Shapiro for submitting the nomination. Chairman DeFrank was confirmed on June 4, by the Senate and will continue serving as chairman of the commission. His new term extends through April 1, 2030. "I'm honored by the confidence shown by Governor Shapiro and the Senate," DeFrank said. "At a time of fast-moving change across our energy and utility systems — from rising demand and extreme weather to cyber-security and infrastructure modernization — the Commission's mission remains clear: ensuring safe, reliable, and affordable service for every Pennsylvanian." DeFrank was sworn in immediately following his confirmation. NIL legislation to protect student athletes to be introduced Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Jesse Topper, R-Bedford/Fulton, and Rep. Perry Stambaugh, R-Perry/Juniata, this week announced they will soon introduce legislation to provide protections for student-athletes receiving compensation for the use their name, image and likeness (NIL). While a case wending through federal courts will likely expand the NIL universe, no state legal structure exists. This leaves compensated student-athletes vulnerable to poor financial decisions and without recourse if they should become injured during their career. "NIL is one of the most dynamic and evolving spaces in the national sports market that has become a life-changing positive for many student-athletes and families," Topper said. "As the NIL landscape continues to advance at the federal level, it is appropriate for state legal supplements to ensure student-athletes are protected at a vulnerable time in their lives." "Our legislation will ensure that students have the financial education and protection available to safeguard their NIL assets while giving them the opportunity to save NIL earnings should they become injured or otherwise incapable of pursuing their athletic career." According to the recently filed co-sponsorship memo in advance of the introduction of formal legislation, the Topper-Stambaugh NIL proposal would require institutions of higher education to offer all student-athletes the option to place a portion of their revenue sharing or NIL earnings into trust accounts. The institutions may partner with established financial firms experienced in educational trust management to minimize administrative overhead. The accounts would have the following features: —Funds become fully accessible upon graduation or departure from the university. —Limited hardship withdrawals permitted with appropriate oversight. —Professional investment management with transparent reporting. —Opt-in structure that preserves athlete autonomy while encouraging responsible financial planning. In addition, colleges and universities would be mandated to provide financial literacy education and resources to their student-athletes. "In the new 'Wild, Wild West' of collegiate athletics that NIL has spawned, helping protect student-athletes from financial harm or exploitation is a solid first step states should take," Stambaugh said. "As the landscape surrounding NIL evolves, Pennsylvania will be studying changes and enacting policies to ensure our colleges and universities can remain competitive." Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
