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
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer told Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys the panel is willing to delay her subpoenaed deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal she has filed, a decision expected in late September. Maxwell's legal team had warned she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination unless certain conditions were met, including congressional immunity, conducting the deposition outside her prison, receiving advance questions, and waiting for the appeal's conclusion. Comer said Maxwell's testimony remains "vital" to the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation but ruled out granting immunity or providing questions in advance. He added the panel is "willing to engage in good faith negotiations" and will continue its practice of holding detailed discussions about the scope of testimony. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
NBC News
43 minutes ago
- NBC News
Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition
Congressional testimony by Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator and confidant Ghislaine Maxwell previously scheduled for mid-August will be postponed until at least October, the chair of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee indicated in a letter Friday. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in the letter obtained by NBC News that the committee would consider next steps after the Supreme Court in late September decides whether it will review Maxwell's conviction as a sex offender. The committee subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition last month and scheduled it for Aug. 11, citing the "immense public interest and scrutiny" surrounding her case and Epstein's. In Friday's letter, Comer reiterated his desire to interview Maxwell, calling her testimony "vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death." "These investigative efforts may be used to inform potential legislation to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations," he wrote. Maxwell's lawyers, David Oscar Markus and Melissa Madrigal, said in a statement they "appreciate the Committee's willingness to delay" the deposition and "will continue to engage with Congress in good faith to find a way for Ms. Maxwell to share her information without compromising her constitutional rights." Maxwell's attorneys previously indicated that she planned to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during the deposition unless the committee granted her immunity, telling Comer in a letter on Tuesday that absent the legal protection Maxwell's testimony "could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool." The Oversight Committee in its letter Friday said it remains "unwilling" to grant Maxwell congressional immunity, but will "continue to engage in good faith negotiations" regarding the particulars of the deposition. Maxwell for months has been pleading with the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction on federal sex trafficking charges and subsequent 20-year prison sentence, arguing that her conviction violated a non-prosecution agreement prosecutors in Florida made with Epstein in 2007 that extended to several of his co-conspirators. Federal prosecutors have argued that the 2007 agreement applies only in Florida, where it was reached, and not New York, where Maxwell's 2021 trial took place. The federal judge who oversaw that trial, Judge Alison Nathan, agreed. The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it would consider whether to review Maxwell's case during a private conference on Sept. 29. The Oversight Committee's subpoena for Maxwell was sent when the Trump administration was coming under increasing pressure to disclose more information related to Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death by suicide has sparked conspiracy theories for years, some of which have been promoted by administration officials and Trump allies. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell and her attorney last week for an interview that spanned nine hours across two days. The Justice Department official has made no public statements about what Maxwell said during their meeting. On Friday, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas that only houses women, unlike the Florida facility where she was previously held, which houses both men and women. Trump, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi, had pledged to release all files pertaining to the investigation, including a purported "client list" of people who benefited from Epstein's crimes. In a stunning about-face last month, the Justice Department released a memo outlining its decision to cease additional disclosures while dismissing several conspiracy theories related to the case. The memo roiled Trump's base and proved to be a rare point of contention between the president and his supporters, particularly as additional news reports emerged highlighting Trump and Epstein's past relationship. Hours after the Wall Street Journal reported last month that Trump wrote a letter to Epstein in 2003 with a drawing of a naked woman, Trump directed Bondi to seek the release of "pertinent" grand jury testimony from Epstein and Maxwell's cases. A federal judge in Florida denied the request, while another in New York has sought additional information from the government before making a ruling.
