Reproductive health clinics are losing federal funding — and conservative states will be hit hardest
A federal move to withhold 16 family planning grants across 22 states could undercut access to basic reproductive health care — including cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted infections and contraception. The impact will likely be felt hardest in states with conservative leadership, which include some of the poorest states in the country.
Beginning this week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it is temporarily withholding millions of dollars of grants through Title X, the federal program that supports family planning services for low-income people, 'pending an evaluation of possible violations of their grant terms,' according to HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon. He said the targeted providers may be in violation of 'federal civil rights law' — language the administration has used to target programs promoting racial and gender-based equality — as well as President Donald Trump's immigration orders.
Reproductive health providers said those arguments are misleading and are being used as an excuse to withhold funding from contraception providers.
If upheld, the cuts, worth about $65.8 million, could affect 870 health facilities serving about 846,000 patients across the country, according to a tally by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, a membership organization for providers. Clinics affected by the administration's move are based in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.
Because of the cuts, seven states — California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana and Utah — have no clinics receiving federal Title X funds, potentially making it harder for patients to access basic family planning services. Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, said the size of cuts in Ohio, Idaho, Alaska, and North and South Carolina could have tangible implications for patients, noting the size of the grants and the unlikelihood of state governments stepping in to replace lost federal funding. Title X clinics are often the main providers in their communities of birth control services, testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings, sex education and wellness checkups. Many also provide gender-affirming care, though that service is not funded by Title X.
The impact could also be heightened in rural areas, where Title X clinics can be one of the main reliable providers of reproductive health care — especially for young people, per one 2022 study. Maine, Mississippi and Montana have some of the country's highest shares of residents living in rural areas, and Mississippi has one of the highest poverty rates.
'This will create a cascading effect across the South, disrupting access to basic health care services such as cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, birth control, infertility care and more,' said Jamie Bardwell, the co-founder of Converge, a provider that is the sole Title X grantee in Mississippi. 'These disruptions will lead to increased negative health outcomes, including higher rates of unintended pregnancy and STIs.'
The letter Converge received to say its funding had been withheld pointed to a statement the organization made in 2020 opposing racism in health care, citing the death of George Floyd — a Black man in Minnesota killed by police — and the history of reproductive coercion, which has historically targeted Black women in particular. The letter, sent by HHS and reviewed by The 19th, argued that the statement violated the Civil Rights Act, a law that ended segregation and outlawed discrimination based on race, sex, religion or national origin.
In 2024, Converge provided care to 30,000 people in Mississippi across 91 health centers; in Tennessee, its 33 facilities saw almost 12,000 patients. Between 2018 and 2022, the most recent years for which federal data is available, Mississippi had the second-highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the country, falling only behind Tennessee. Just under 40 percent of Mississippi residents are Black, per the U.S. Census Bureau — and state data from 2017 through 2019 shows that Black women in the state were at four times greater risk of pregnancy-related death compared to White women.
Some family planning clinics may be able to secure replacement funding from state governments or from private donations. But it will be more difficult to do so in states with conservative leadership, where lawmakers have shown less willingness to put money into reproductive health, Coleman said. In 2017, the most recent year for which a federal analysis is available, Title X funding made up about one-fifth of all revenue for clinics funded by the program.
Family planning providers have indicated they intend to challenge the policy in court.
'We will fight any attacks on the vital health care we provide Mainers with every tool in our arsenal,' said George Hill, the head of Maine Family Planning. 'That may include litigating to defend the rights of the Title X family planning network in Maine.'
But unless quickly reversed, the federal policy will likely result in health centers laying off staff and then shutting down entirely, Coleman said. Title X clinics operate on thin financial margins.
The violations the Trump administration has alleged — of 'federal civil rights law' and Trump's immigration orders, including one that prohibits 'non-cash benefits' from going to undocumented people — are misleading, she added, and do not support the move to suddenly withhold funding.
Title X-funded clinics are not supposed to turn people away because of inability to pay or based on whether they live locally, and they typically do not ask patients about their citizenship status. And though Trump has issued executive orders targeting immigration as well as diversity, equity and inclusion, HHS has not issued guidance about how they would implement those orders with regard to Title X — meaning health centers had not received any warning about how their funding applications could be at risk. Organizations whose funding was officially withheld Tuesday received letters notifying them only a day in advance.
'This is a pretext. This isn't on the level,' Coleman said.
Because many Title X-backed health centers are operated by Planned Parenthood, the program has become a target for abortion opponents, even more so since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, even though the program itself does not provide funding to support abortion. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President JD Vance suggested that Trump would support policies to 'defund' Planned Parenthood.
In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 40 percent of people receiving health care through Title X got that care from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Nine of the 16 grantees affected are Planned Parenthood affiliates.
The move comes as family planning providers — and their patients — are uniquely vulnerable. The Supreme Court heard a case Wednesday over whether South Carolina's Medicaid program can refuse to cover health services provided at Planned Parenthood clinics, even if they would cover them at other health facilities.
A ruling in favor of South Carolina would likely encourage other states with anti-abortion governments to enact similar policies, which could in turn result in fewer patients being able to afford reproductive health care.
The post Reproductive health clinics are losing federal funding — and conservative states will be hit hardest appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People

USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
LGBTQ+ health centers lead fight against mpox and stigma nationwide
Matt Alderton Studio Gannett The date was May 17, 2022. It was more than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, and Americans everywhere were epidemiologically exhausted. In Massachusetts, however, public health officials had just clocked the first case in a brand-new infectious disease outbreak. The pathogen now known as mpox was first documented in monkeys in 1958. Caused by a virus similar to the smallpox virus, it causes flu-like symptoms; a painful, pustulous rash; and, in the rarest cases, death. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared mpox a public health emergency in August 2022, there were more than 10,000 documented cases in the United States — mostly in the LGBTQ+ community, where the virus had spread rapidly through sexual transmission. Cases slowly declined from there, however, and by January 2023 the threat had mostly faded. Credit for the containment belongs not only to the LGBTQ+ individuals who embraced safer sex practices and stood in blocks-long lines for vaccines, but also to the doctors and nurses at community health centers who delivered critical care and education tailored to at-risk patients. 'LGBTQ+ clinics and community centers were the first to respond and set up very quickly and very efficiently not only information for our community to keep us safe, but also vaccine programs,' says Alex Sheldon , executive director of GLMA, previously known as the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association. 'The (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) had raised huge alarm bells about where this was going to go, and that it was going to spread even further into the general population. But because of the quick and efficient responses of these clinics and community centers, and because of the trust they already had with community members, they were able to respond so quickly that it for the most part stopped mpox in its tracks.' Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. The rapid, responsive care that LGBTQ+ community health centers provided during mpox is the same care they provided during COVID-19 and the HIV/AIDS crisis decades prior. More important, it's the same care they provide daily to LGBTQ+ individuals who need routine services like primary and preventive care, screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and mental health counseling. 'Many LGBTQ+ clinics were started by LGBTQ+ providers who had a stake in their community's wellbeing. So, they developed health care settings that were designed around their own needs,' Sheldon says. 'These places center our community within every single part of what they do.' Unique Health Needs Because LGBTQ+ people have unique health care needs, it's critical that health care systems are tailored to those needs. 'LGBTQ+ people … experience a lot of health disparities, and the vast majority of those health disparities are driven by the pronounced stigma and discrimination that LGBTQ+ people face in our everyday lives,' explains Sheldon, who says stigma creates stress that can impact both mental and physical health. 'Navigating a world that isn't built for you because it's designed around cisgender and heterosexual experiences —who your partner is, what you do on the weekends, how you built your family — can be a really challenging way to live.' LGBTQ+ people who have experienced discrimination often go out of their way to avoid it in the future, which might mean delaying health care or opting out of it entirely to evade providers with whom they don't feel seen or safe. 'The longer you delay getting health care … the more likely you are to have adverse health outcomes because of that delayed care,' Sheldon says. Therein lies the merit of community health centers, says Dr. Stephen Abbott , medical site director of the Max Robinson Center at Whitman-Walker, a nonprofit community health system serving LGBTQ+ patients in Washington, D.C. 'Often, issues surrounding an individual's care don't get disclosed if somebody doesn't feel comfortable in the environment where they're seeking care,' Abbott says. 'If you go into a waiting room and there's nobody there affirming your pronouns, or they make certain assumptions about who your partner is, or they can't take a decent sexual history, or they don't know how to do an appropriate mental health screening that's informed by traumatic experiences in your past, then you're not going to get appropriate care.' Community health centers make LGBTQ+ patients comfortable by fostering inclusion in every respect — having gender-neutral intake forms, hiring medical and administrative staff from the community, offering LGBTQ+ periodicals in waiting rooms and depicting LGBTQ+ individuals on websites and in patient literature, all of which foster trust so that patients are more likely to show up for appointments, seek preventative care and adhere to medical advice and guidelines. 'Community health centers that have historically served the LGBTQ+ community have demonstrated the ability to look past a person's sexual or gender identity and see them as a whole person,' says Dr. Travis Gayles , CEO of Howard Brown Health, a nonprofit community health system serving LGBTQ+ patients in Chicago. 'And when you're seeing the whole person, you can gain new perspectives and insights, ask appropriate questions, offer appropriate treatment and, ultimately, create better health outcomes.' Community health centers like Whitman-Walker and Howard Brown are particularly proud of the care they provide for individuals with HIV; preventative services like pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and Doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) for HIV and STI prevention, respectively; and their provision of gender-affirming care to individuals who are trans and nonbinary. To measure their success, however, they rely as much on social and emotional metrics as clinical ones. Holistic Care 'There are folks who have come to us for mpox, for HIV treatment or for gender-affirming care who have moments of pure joy and gratitude that you can't measure with the resolution of a rash, a viral load or even completion of a transition,' Abbott says. Gayles concurs. 'Yes, we look at clinical outcomes. But what's also important is empowering patients with stable housing, academic opportunities and employment opportunities. … When you're going to a health center like ours that understands all those (social determinants of health), it increases the likelihood that you're going to be connected in a meaningful way to those services.' 'We'll Get Through This' Both the LGBTQ+ community and the health centers that serve it are experiencing significant challenges, according to Sheldon, who notes that the Trump administration budget proposes significant reductions in funding and support for sexual and gender minorities. HHS, for example, has closed its Office of Minority Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering closing its Division of HIV Prevention; the National Institutes of Health has terminated more than 270 grants focused on LGBTQ+ health research, worth at least $800 million; and Congress is mulling significant cuts to Medicaid, on which many community health centers rely. 'Our health systems are under attack, but … I remain incredibly optimistic,' Sheldon says. 'When (governments) say we are invisible or worthy of erasure, we have always risen to the occasion by caring for ourselves and each other … We are once again rising to the occasion and will not back down.' Utilizing community health centers for services, donating to them, and singing their praises to philanthropists and policymakers can help fuel the fight, Abbott adds. 'We're going to be here no matter what,' he says. 'We'll get through this.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kennedy's HHS sent Congress ‘junk science' to defend vaccine changes, experts say
A document the Department of Health and Human Services sent to lawmakers to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change U.S. policy on covid vaccines cites scientific studies that are unpublished or under dispute and mischaracterizes others. One health expert called the document 'willful medical disinformation' about the safety of covid vaccines for children and pregnant women. 'It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there,' said Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine. Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist before taking a role in the Trump administration, announced May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, bypassing the agency's formal process for adjusting its vaccine schedules for adults and kids. The announcement, made on the social platform X, has been met with outrage by many pediatricians and scientists. The HHS document meant to support Kennedy's decision, obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to members of Congress who questioned the science and process behind his move, according to one federal official who asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The document has not been posted on the HHS website, though it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy's announcement from the agency. Titled 'Covid Recommendation FAQ,' the document distorts some legitimate studies and cites others that are disputed and unpublished, medical experts say. HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon told KFF Health News, 'There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science.' HHS did not respond to a request to name the author of the document. One of the studies the HHS document cites is under investigation by its publisher regarding 'potential issues with the research methodology and conclusions and author conflicts of interest,' according to a link on the study's webpage. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Another study cited in the document is a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Under the study's title is an alert that 'it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.' Though the preprint was made available a year ago, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The FAQ supporting Kennedy's decision claims that 'post-marketing studies' of covid vaccines have identified 'serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis' — conditions in which the heart's muscle or its covering, the pericardium, suffer inflammation. False claims that the 2024 preprint showed myocarditis and pericarditis only in people who received a covid vaccine, and not in people infected with covid, circulated on social media. One of the study's co-authors publicly rejected that idea, because the study did not compare outcomes between people who were vaccinated and those infected with the covid virus. The study also focused only on children and adolescents. The HHS document omitted numerous other peer-reviewed studies that have shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after contracting covid for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone. O'Leary said that while some cases of myocarditis were reported in vaccinated adolescent boys and young men early in the covid pandemic, the rates declined after the two initial doses of covid vaccines were spaced further apart. Now, adolescents and adults who have not been previously vaccinated receive only one shot, and myocarditis no longer shows up in the data, O'Leary said, referring to the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink. 'There is no increased risk at this point that we can identify,' he said. In two instances, the HHS memo makes claims that are actively refuted by the papers it cites to back them up. Both papers support the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines for pregnant women. The HHS document says that another paper it cites found 'an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who took the vaccine.' But the paper doesn't contain any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant women. 'I've now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere,' said Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor. If he were grading the HHS document, 'I would give this an 'F,'' Turrentine said. 'This is not supported by anything and it's not using medical evidence.' While members of Congress who are physicians should know to check references in the paper, they may not take the time to do so, said Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. 'They're going to assume this is coming from a scientific agency. So they are being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document,' Silverman said. The offices of three Republicans in Congress who are medical doctors serving on House and Senate committees focused on health, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), did not respond to requests for comment about whether they received the memo. Emily Druckman, communications director for Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), a physician serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Schrier's office did receive a copy of the document. 'The problem is a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they don't have the expertise to be able to pick those references apart,' O'Leary said. 'But this one — I've seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.' C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic staff members of the committee received the document from HHS. In the past, he said, similar documents would help clarify the justification and scope of an administration's policy change and could be assumed to be scientifically accurate, Young said. 'This feels like it's breaking new ground. I don't think that we saw this level of sloppiness or inattention to detail or lack of consideration for scientific merit under the first Trump administration,' Young said. On June 4, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Schrier introduced a bill that would require Kennedy to adopt official vaccine decisions from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. Young said the motivation behind the bill was Kennedy's decision to change the covid vaccine schedule without the input of ACIP's vaccine experts, who play a key role in setting CDC policies around vaccine schedules and access. Kennedy announced June 9 on X that he would remove all 17 members of ACIP, citing alleged conflicts of interest he did not detail, and replace them. He announced eight replacements June 11, including people who had criticized vaccine mandates during the covid pandemic. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.