logo
More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts

More than 20 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over Planned Parenthood funding cuts

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — More than 20 mostly Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its efforts to cut Medicaid payments to the nation's largest abortion provider — Planned Parenthood.
The move comes in response to the
package of tax breaks and spending cuts
Trump signed earlier this month. A portion of the new cuts are focused on services such as cancer screenings and tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted infections — by ending Medicaid reimbursements for a year for major providers of family planning services.
The cuts apply to groups that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The goal was to target
Planned Parenthood
, but the legislation also affected a
major medical provider in Maine
.
California, New York, Connecticut, other states and Washington, D.C. argue in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts that the provision's language is unclear about which groups it applies to. They also say it retaliates against Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion access, violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
The states are asking that the portion of the law be blocked and deemed unconstitutional.
The cuts threaten health care access for many low-income Americans, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference.
'This attack isn't just about abortion,' the Democrat said. 'It's about denying vulnerable communities access to care they rely on every day.'
But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named a defendant in the suit, defended the provision.
'States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,' spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon said in an email. 'It is a shame that these democrat attorney generals seek to undermine state flexibility and disregard longstanding concerns about accountability.'
Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics offering a range of services across the state, and
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
filed separate lawsuits earlier this year challenging the cuts. Planned Parenthood said although it is not specifically named in the law, the provision was meant to affect its nearly 600 centers in 48 states. About a third of those clinics risk closure because of the legislation, which would strip care from more than 1 million patients, the group argues.
A
federal judge on Monday ruled
Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to receive Medicaid reimbursements.
Maine Family Planning said it had enough in its reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursements only through October. About half of the group's patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid.
The states' suit filed Tuesday argues that by pushing Planned Parenthood clinics to close or cut services, it could increase the states' medical care costs in the long term. Otherwise the cuts will make states use their own funds to keep health centers open.
'Either we have to comply and violate Planned Parenthood's constitutional rights and then push people to alternative providers that don't exist, who don't have the capacity to pick up the slack, or we have to spend upwards of $6 million or more to cover (those services),' said William Tong, Connecticut's Democratic attorney general.
Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions, but some conservatives argue abortion providers use Medicaid money for other health services to subsidize abortion.
___
Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this report.
___
Austin is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.
Report for America
is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X:
@sophieadanna
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs
Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised the tariff rate on U.S. imports from Canada to 35% from 25%, effective Friday. The announcement from the White House late Thursday said Canada had failed to 'do more to arrest, seize, detain or otherwise intercept … traffickers, criminals at large, and illicit drugs.' Trump has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become its 51st U.S. state. He had threatened to impose the higher tariff on Canada if no deal was reached by Friday, his deadline for reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries. Earlier Thursday, the president said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state would 'make it very hard' for the United States to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America. Prime Minister Mark Carney had tempered expectations over tariffs, saying Ottawa would only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.' In a statement released early Friday, he said he was disappointed by Trump's actions and vowed to diversify Canada's exports. 'Canada accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes,' he said, pointing to heavy investments in border security. Carney added that some industries — including lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles — will be harder hit, but said his government will try to minimize the impact and protect Canadian jobs. Canada was not included in Trump's updated list of tariff rates on other countries announced late Thursday. Those import duties are due to take effect on Aug. 7. Trump sent a letter to Canada a few weeks ago warning he planned to raise duties on many goods imported from Canada to 35%, deepening the rift between the two North American countries that has undermined their decades-old alliance. Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which is up for renegotiation next year. The White House's statement said goods transshipped through Canada that are not covered by the USMCA would be subject to a 40% tariff rate. It did not say where the goods might originate. President Donald Trump said Thursday that there would be a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico after a call with that country's leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, keeping 25% tariff rates in place.

CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped
CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped

CNBC

time21 minutes ago

  • CNBC

CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped

The first time U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his "reciprocal" tariffs on the rest of the world, the April 2 event had a cinematic, even grand, quality. It took place at the White House Rose Garden. There was a live band playing, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump hoisted huge physical charts of his tariff rates, which were helpfully color-coded for visual clarity. This time, Trump's updated "reciprocal" tariffs, released the night before they come into effect on Aug. 1, seemed in comparison stripped of pomp and glamor. The White House's executive order popped up around 7 p.m. ET, just as people in the U.S. were getting off work. There was no live event, no big chart and certainly no entertainment — just a stern website with a black-and-white table. That austerity — and, one might even say, stealth — surrounding the recent announcement suggests two things. First, the White House could be aware that the dramatic shock of tariffs has less power to sway trade deals when staged a second time. The "90 deals in 90 days" that trade advisor Peter Navarro had promised in April are, after all, nowhere in sight. Trump, however, still left ajar the door to making "some kind of a deal." Second, the U.S. might actually be pleased with the effects of its higher-than-expected tariffs on countries without deals, and is willing to keep levies at those levels. In June, the U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus thanks to tariff revenue, which were more than four times higher from a year ago. And economists aren't as alarmed by tariff-driven inflation as they once were. All that's speculation, of course. The order could have been released in this low-key fashion simply because the Rose Garden is now more like a Concrete Path. Or perhaps Trump doesn't want the penguins on the Heard and McDonald islands to hear about his levies this time. The U.S. rejigs tariff rates ahead of Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's executive order also imposed a 40% duty on all goods considered to have been transshipped to America. Here's how Asian leaders are reacting to the announcement, made Thursday evening stateside. The S&P 500 falls, retreating from an intraday high. Microsoft shares, however, rose around 4% to push the company's market cap above $4 trillion. Asia-Pacific markets — and tech giants, in particular — fell on Friday as investors digest latest tariff developments. Apple beats expectations for profit and revenue. The Cupertino-based company's iPhone sales grew 13% year over year, while overall revenue rose 10% in its fiscal third quarter, the fastest growth since December 2021. Amazon's gloomy guidance overshadows its earnings. Even though the company surpassed Wall Street's estimates for its second-quarter results, its expected operating income for the current quarter wasn't as high as analysts had hoped for. [PRO] Novo Nordisk's stock plunge isn't that surprising. On Tuesday, the firm's shares fell as much as 26% after it slashed its full-year guidance — and appointed a new CEO. Here's why companies tend to make both announcements simultaneously. Tariff turmoil: How global CEOs are shifting gears In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old "just in time" model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. —

A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?

Forbes

time21 minutes ago

  • Forbes

A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?

James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store